Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.69 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd on 9 September, 2009
21. In the present case, there is no error in the interpretation of the
contract clauses by the Arbitral Tribunal. However even if it were to
be assumed, without admitting, that the contention of the petitioner is
correct even then this Court would not interfere with the Arbitral
award for the reason that it is settled law that an error relatable to
interpretation of the contract by an arbitrator is an error within his
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of
India Ltd. vs. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd., (2009) 10 SCC 63 =
2009 SCACTC 467 (SC) = 2009 (3) Arb. LR 466 (SC) has
summarized the law on this point, in paragraph 26 of the said
judgment, as follows:
Champsey Bhara And Company vs The Jivraj Balloo Spinning And C. Co. ... on 6 March, 1923
"18. An award made by an arbitrator is conclusive as a
judgment between the parties and the Court is entitled to
set aside an award if the arbitrator has misconducted
himself in the proceedings or when the award has been
made after the issue of an order by the Court
superseding the arbitration or after arbitration
OMP No.719/2012 Page 15 of 21
proceedings have become invalid under Section 35 of
the Arbitration Act or where an award has been
improperly procured or is otherwise invalid (S 30 of the
Arbitration Act). An award may be set aside by the Court
on the ground of error on the face of the award, but an
award is not invalid merely because by a process of
inference and argument it may be demonstrated that the
arbitrator has committed some mistake in arriving at his
conclusion. As observed in Chempsey Bhara and
Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving
Company Ltd. 50 Ind App 324 at p. 331 (AIR 1923 PC 66
at P. 69):
Sudarsan Trading Co vs Govt. Of Kerala & Anr on 14 February, 1989
18. i) In the case of Sudarsan Trading Co. vs. Govt. of Kerala &
Anr., AIR 1989 SC 890, it was held as under:
P.R. Shah Shares & Stock Brokers (P)Ltd vs M/S. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. & Ors on 14 October, 2011
19. The scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 is limited to the stipulations contained in Section 34(2) of the
Act. The jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an Award of the
Arbitrator is always statutory. Section 34 is of mandatory nature, and
an Award can be set aside only on the Court finding the existence of
the grounds enumerated therein and in no other way. The words in
Section 34(2) that "An Arbitral Award may be set aside by the Court
only if" are imperative and take away the jurisdiction of the Court to
set aside an Award on any ground other than those specified in the
Section. The Court is not expected to sit in appeal over the findings of
the Arbitral Tribunal or to re-appreciate evidence as an appellate
court. A recent observation of the Supreme Court in the case of P.R.
Shah, Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited vs. B.H.H.
Securities Private Limited And Others, (2012) 1 SCC 594 = 2011
SCACTC 604 (SC) = 2011 (4) Arb. LR 128 (SC) is apposite in this
OMP No.719/2012 Page 18 of 21
regard and the relevant portion, contained in paragraph 21 of the said
judgment is, reproduced as under :
Section 35 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries vs Union Of India on 14 September, 2007
iv) The Arbitral Tribunal is the final arbiter of the disputes
between the parties referred to it. In the present case the parties
OMP No.719/2012 Page 17 of 21
by themselves have agreed in the contract to accept the Award as
final and conclusive. The Supreme Court has expounded on the
principle as to the sanctity of the decision of the arbitrator in the
case of Markfed Vanaspati and Allied Industries vs. Union of
India, (2007) 7 SCC 679 = 2007 (3) Arb. LR 437 (SC), where in
paragraph 17 of the said judgment it was observed as under: