Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 58 (0.48 seconds)Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
The Companies Act, 1956
State Of Rajasthan vs M/S Nav Bharat Construction Company on 4 October, 2005
13. It is well settled that when a case involves interpretation of a clause or some clauses of an agreement and the Arbitral Tribunal gives an interpretation which is plausible, the Court would not substitute that interpretation for its own interpretation only because the Court takes a different view or feels that the other interpretation is a better interpretation. This view is fortified by the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Construction Co., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 182 and P.R.Shah, supra.
Section 14 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd vs Jindal Exports Ltd on 8 July, 2011
16. As held in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2011) 8 SCC 333, cited by M.Sundar,J. all proceedings relating to arbitration are governed by the 1996 Act, including an appeal which is governed by Section 37 of the 1996 Act, and in deciding an appeal, the Division Bench is only to see if the judgment under appeal is patently erroneous. The Division Bench cannot substitute its view for the view taken by the Single Bench only because it prefers another view and it hardly needs mention that the scope of interference with an impugned award by the Appellate Court is restricted to the same grounds on which an impugned award can be interfered with in proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.