Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.43 seconds)Associated Engineering Co vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 15 July, 1991
15. Therefore, it needs little emphasis that an arbitrator
derives his authority from the contract and if he acts in
disregard of the contract, he acts without jurisdiction. A
deliberate departure from contract amounts to not only
manifest disregard of his authority or a misconduct on
his part, but it may tantamount to a mala fide action
[Also see: Associated Engineering Co. Vs. Government
of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (supra)].
M/S. Alopi Parshad & Sons, Ltd vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 1960
In this context, a reference can usefully be made to
the observations of this Court in M/s. Alopi Parshad
and Sons, Ltd. Vs. Union of India , wherein it was
observed that the Indian Contract Act does not enable a
party to a contract to ignore the express covenants
thereof, and to claim payment of consideration for
performance of the contract at rates different from the
stipulated rates, on some vague plea of equity. The Court
went on to say that in India, in the codified law of
contracts, there is nothing which justifies the view that a
change of circumstances, "completely outside the
contemplation of parties" at the time when the contract
was entered into will justify a Court, while holding the
parties bound by the contract, in departing from the
express terms thereof.
The Naihati Jute Mills Ltd vs Hyaliram Jagannath on 19 October, 1967
Similarly, in The Naihati Jute
Mills Ltd. Vs. Khyaliram Jagannath , this Court had
observed that where there is an express term, the Court
cannot find, on construction of the contract, an implied
term inconsistent with such express term.
Continental Construction Co. Ltd vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 1988
In Continental Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh , it was emphasised that not being a
conciliator, an arbitrator cannot ignore the law or
misapply it in order to do what he thinks is just and
reasonable. He is a tribunal selected by the parties to
decide their disputes according to law and so is bound to
follow and apply the law, and if he does not, he can be set
right by the court provided his error appears on the face
of the award.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs M/S Annapurna Construction on 29 August, 2003
In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Annapurna
Construction while inter alia, observing that the
arbitrator cannot act arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously
or independent of the contract, it was observed, thus:
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Jain Associates And Anr. on 19 April, 1994
10. While considering objections under Section 30 of
the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act"), the
jurisdiction of the Court to set aside an award is limited.
One of the grounds, stipulated in the Section, on which
the Court can interfere with the award is when the
arbitrator has 'misconducted' himself or the proceedings.
The word "misconduct" has neither been defined in the
Act nor is it possible for the Court to exhaustively define
it or to enumerate the line of cases in which alone
interference either could or could not be made.
Nevertheless, the word "misconduct" in Section 30 (a) of
the Act does not necessarily comprehend or include
misconduct or fraudulent or improper conduct or moral
lapse but does comprehend and include actions on the
part of the arbitrator, which on the face of the award, are
opposed to all rational and reasonable principles
resulting in excessive award or unjust result. (Union of
India Vs. Jain Associates and Anr. .
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr on 20 September, 1999
1