Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Arbitration Act, 1940

Sunday, July 31, 2011
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 29 — Whether an arbitrator has jurisdiction to grant interest despite the agreement prohibiting the same? — Held, no.

 
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 29 — Power of arbitrator to award interest pendent elite — Where the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and the said dispute is referred to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest pendent elite — In such a case, it must be presumed that interest was an implied term of the agreement between the parties — However, this does not mean that in every case, the arbitrator should necessarily award interest pendente lite — It is a matter within his discretion to be exercised in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the ends of justice in view.

 
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 30 — Arbitral Award — Jurisdiction of the court to set aside an award — Held, the jurisdiction of the court to set aside an award under Section 30 of the Act has now been settled by catena of decisions of this Court as well as by the different High Courts in India — Taking those principles into consideration, it would thus be clear that under Section 30 of the Act it must be said that the court is not empowered to re-appreciate the evidence and examine the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Umpire in considering an application for setting aside the award.

 
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 30 — Arbitral Award — Objections thereto — Power of the court in the exercise of its power under Section 30 of the Act to set aside the award — Discussed — In the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Chandu Construction [2007 (4) SCC 697], it was held that when the Arbitrator or the Umpire as the case may be, had ignored the specific terms or had acted beyond the four corners of the contract, it was open for the court in the exercise of its power under Section 30 of the Act to set aside the award on the ground that the Arbitrator could not ignore the law or misapply the terms of the contract in order to do what he thought was just and reasonable.

 
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 30 — Arbitral proceedings — Award — Objections thereto — Jurisdiction of the court under Section 30 — Nature thereof — Held — Jurisdiction of the court under Section 30 of the Act is not appellate in nature and the award passed by the Umpire cannot be set aside on the ground that it was erroneous — It is also not open to the court to interfere with the award merely because in the opinion of the court, another view is equally possible — The objections are overruled — Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. vs. Hindustan Cooper Ltd. [2005 (6) SCC 462] and Food Corporation of India vs. Chandu Construction [2007 (4) SCC 697] referred.

 
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 30 and 31 — Arbitral Award — Objections — In the present case, there was a difference of opinion between the two Arbitrators — Therefore, the Arbitrators referred the dispute to an Umpire — The Umpire entered into the reference and passed an award — Said award of the Umpire was set aside by the Apex Court and a new Umpire was appointed vide its order dated 4th of October, 2005 — In compliance with the judgment of this Court new Umpire entered into reference and passed his award — Now the appellant has filed an application for making the award a rule of the Court and at the same time the respondent has filed an objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act — An Interlocutory Application was also filed by the respondent challenging the jurisdiction of Court to make the award absolute and also to consider the objections raised by the respondent against the award passed by the Umpire in pursuance of the order passed on 4th of October, 2005 — According to the respondent, who appeared in person, the application and objections filed by the parties must be sent back to the court of competent jurisdiction for deciding the same in accordance with law, because after the judgment was passed and the earlier award was set aside by the impugned judgment, this Court had become functus officio to entertain such applications — Question — Whether Apex Court still retains the jurisdiction to entertain the award passed by the Umpire or to consider the objections to the same or the matter should go back to the court of competent jurisdiction for considering the said application and objections in accordance with law? — Held — From the judgment of this Court dated 4th of October, 2005, it has been made clear by this Court in the operative part of the same, as noted herein earlier, that the award that would be passed by the Umpire must be filed in this Court and secondly it was clarified in the judgment itself that this was not a case of a new reference but a continuation of the earlier proceeding and thus the Act shall continue to apply — In Mcdermott International Inc. [2005 (10) SCC 353], a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court clearly observed that since the Arbitrator was directed to file his award in this Court, the objections as well as the entertainability of the application of the appellant for making the award a rule of the Court must be filed in this Court alone and, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application of the appellant and also the objections filed by the respondent — Application for making the award a rule of the court allowed and objections filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act rejected — Mcdermott International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd and Others [2005 (10) SCC 353] and Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. vs. Hindustan Cooper Ltd. [2005 (6) SCC 462] referred.

 
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 30 and 33 — Objection petition — Held, the raison d’etre for filing objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is the Award which has to be filed in Court either by the Arbitrator or at the instance of any of the parties requiring the Arbitrator to do so — Even the Court may direct the Arbitrator to file his Award on the application made by any of the parties thereto.

 
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 30 and 33 — Limitation Act, 1963, Article 119 — Objection petition — In the present case, while the original Award was filed in Court on 27th May, 1998, the objections filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for setting aside the Award was filed on 3rd January, 1998 — Held, such objection could not be treated as a valid objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act in view of the provisions of Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

 
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 30, 33 and 14(2) — Objection under Sections 30 and 33 — Filed prior to the filing of the award — Contention that since the objection was already on record, the same ought to have been taken into consideration while considering the respondent’s application under Section 14(2) for making the Award a Rule of Court, instead of holding the same to be pre-mature and disregarding the same — Held not tenable — Filing an objection against something which did not exist on the date when the objection was filed is unacceptable and must be rejected — Appeal dismissed.

 
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 30 — Words “no award shall be set aside” — Held, the words “no award shall be set aside” in Section 30 mandate the courts not to set aside the award on the ground other than those specified in Section 30. 

 

 
Friday, February 13, 2009
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 31, sub-sections (3) & (4) and Section 20 — Any application in any reference, meaning thereby even an application under Section 20 of the Act could or should be filed in a court competent to entertain such proceeding and having jurisdiction to decide the subject of the reference — Such jurisdiction would or could be restricted by the agreements entered into by and between the parties.

 
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 20, Section 31 sub-sections (3) & (4) and Section 41 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 20 — Contract Act, 1872, Section 28 — Whether the ouster clause in the agreement between the parties will also be applicable in ascertaining the competent court for making an application for reference under section 20 of the Act ? — Held, yes.  

 
Friday, August 15, 2008
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 34 — There is no requirement of filing the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1940.

 
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Which would be the appropriate court for the purpose of filing of an award by the arbitrator? — Held,  a distinction must be borne in mind in a case where the Court had no control over the proceedings and the case in which control of proceedings of the arbitrator had been retained — In the former case, having regard to the definition of the term "court" as contained in Section 2(c) of the 1940 Act, award must be filed before a court which has the requisite jurisdiction thereover.

 
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 30 — Award — Setting-aside — In the case of a reasoned award, the Court can interfere if the award is based upon a proposition of law which is unsound in law and that the erroneous proposition of law must be established to have vitiated the decision — Further held, error of law must appear from the award itself or from any document or note incorporated in it or appended to it.

 
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 30 — Award — Setting-aside — When the Arbitrator had taken a plausible view on interpretation of contract, it is not open to the court to set aside the award on the ground that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself in the proceedings and therefore, the award was liable to be set aside.

 
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 20 — Limitation Act, 1963, Article 137 — The period of three years prescribed in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to file an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

 
Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940 — Section 20 — Limitation Act, 1963, Article 137 — An application filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act has to be filed within three years from the date when the right to apply accrues — Right to apply accrues under Section 20, Arbitration Act, 1940, as soon as dispute or difference arises on unequivocal denial of claim by one party to the other party as a result of which the claimant acquires a right to refer the dispute to arbitration — In the instant case, when the negotiations were taking place between the parties by way of various letters written by both parties, the right to apply can be said to accrue when it becomes necessary to apply, that is to say when a dispute in fact arose — Right to apply under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 accrued to the appellants only on the date of the last correspondence between the parties and the period of limitation commences from the date of the last communication between the parties.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.