Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.27 seconds)M/S. Canara Nidhi Limited vs M. Shashikala on 23 September, 2019
"49. Further, this Court has repeatedly held that an
application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996
is a summary proceeding not in the nature of a regular
suit - see Canara Nidhi Ltd. v. M. Shashikala 2019 SCC
Online SC 1244 at paragraph 20.
Benarsi Krishna Commit.& Ors vs Karmyogi Shelters P.Ltd on 21 September, 2012
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
decision reported in (2011) 4 - S.C.C.- 616 ( State of
Maharashtra & Others vs. ARK Builders Private Limited)
as well as in the above-mentioned decision reported in (2012)
9 SCC 496 (Benarsi Krishna Committee & Others vs.
Karmyogi Shelters Private Limited), has held that limitation
10
Com.A.S.No.179/2017
period for setting aside an arbitral award is to be reckoned from
the date the copy of the award duly signed by arbitrator is
delivered to/received by the objector and not otherwise.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
The most
significant part of this judgment is the recognition and re-
affirmation given to the test of patent illegality, as set out in
Paragraph (42.3) of the Associate Builders case and which was
reiterated in Paragraph (40) of Ssangyong Engineering case.
The aforementioned test of 'patent illegality' lays down that any
contravention of Section 28 (3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 is deemed to be a sub-head of patent illegality.
According to it, an Arbitral Tribunal must decide in accordance
with the terms of the contract, but if an Arbitrator construes a
term of the contract in such a way that it could be said to be
something that no fair minded or reasonable person could do,
the same will render the award 'patently illegal'.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Parsa Kenta Collieries Ltd. vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam ... on 27 May, 2019
22. d. For the same principle, I wish to refer another
decision reported in 2019 (7) - S.C.C. - 236 (Parsa Kenta
22
Com.A.S.No.179/2017
Collieries Limited vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan
Nigam Limited). Once the courts reach to the conclusion that
the Arbitrator has acted within its jurisdiction, even if the courts
are of the view that the opinion of the arbitrator is wrong the
same cannot be disturbed unless it is against the public policy.
Adani Power (Mundra) Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 7 June, 2021
23. c. Further, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has
relied on a decision reported in 2019 (19) - S.C.C. - 9 (Adani
Power (Mundra) Limited vs. Gujarat Electricity
Regulatory Commission and Others) and has argued that at
Para No. 21 of the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held about how a Commercial Contract is to be determined and
that since the learned Arbitrator has not determined in
accordance with said decision and he has drawn adverse
inference for non-production of log books, which is contrary to
the terms of the contract. I have gone through the said
27
Com.A.S.No.179/2017
decision. The said decision relates to an order passed by the
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and Order passed by the
Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission. There is no
discussion about the award passed by any Arbitrator appointed
under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
When such being the case, as discussed by me above, if the
Arbitrator has interpreted the contract in a particular manner,
even if another view is possible, this court cannot interfere with
said finding.
Delta Distilleries Ltd vs United Spirits Limited & Anr on 23 September, 2013
Further, as held in 2014 (1) - S.C.C. - 113
(Delta Distilleries Limited vs. United Spirits Limited and
Another), the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para No. 23 has held
that the Arbitral Tribunal has a power to draw an adverse
inference, if necessary documents are not produced.
Silor Associates Sa vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd on 1 July, 2014
Similar
view is taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2014 -
S.C.C. Online - DEL - 3407 (Silor Associates SA vs.
Bharath Heavy Electrical Limited). Therefore, the said
finding of the learned Arbitrator cannot be considered as
perverse or illegal. Moreover, this ground is in the nature and
tenor of appeal. The position in law is well settled that this court
while exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act does not sit as a court of appeal.
Indian Oil Corporation vs Indian Carbon Ltd on 6 April, 1988
27. a In fact, the learned Arbitrator has considered the
relevant documents marked by the parties and also the portion
the oral evidence adduced by the parties while giving finding in
the Impugned Award. At the end of the award, he has referred
all the documents marked by both parties in the Annexure. For
the attack of the Petitioner on this ground, I wish to refer a
decision reported in A.I.R. - 1988 - S.C. - 1340 (Indian Oil
Corporation vs. Indian Carbon Ltd) wherein, at Para No.8, it
is held as follows:-