Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-31-2017
..... to be bad, justice lahoti s appointment must follow as being bad as an ineligible arbitrator cannot appoint another arbitrator. he has argued before us that the 2016 amendment act, which substituted section 12(1), read with the fifth and seventh schedules and introduced section 12(5), has to be read in the context of the grounds ..... and the identity of the arbitrators who have upheld insurer a's arguments. it follows from locabail and amec capital projects ltd v whitefriars city estates ltd [2005]. 1 all er723that an objection to the appointment of a member of a previous panel would not be sustained simply on the basis that the arbitrator had previously ..... part i, arising out of an arbitration other than an 27 international commercial arbitration, one more ground of challenge is available viz. patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. the ground of patent illegality would not be established, if there is merely an erroneous application of the law or a re-appreciation of evidence.20. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-01-2017
..... would not have arisen.37. this submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, cannot be accepted as the application seeking amendment of the counter claim was withdrawn by the petitioner on 4th january, 2005 with liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law in a court of law. it is important here to note that in this application seeking ..... arbitrator, i cannot come to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the sole arbitrator can be stated to be patently illegal so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 34 of the act.46. supreme court in the case of associate builders vs. delhi development authority reported in (2015) 3 scc49 while reiterating .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-06-2017
..... : (a) an award, which is (i) contrary to substantive provisions of law; or (ii) the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996; or (iii) against the terms of the respective contract; or (iv) patently illegal; or (v) prejudicial to the rights of the parties; is open to interference by the court under section 34(2) of the ..... it was the firs.time, there were unforeseen factors and unforeseen delays which had caused accumulated delay of nearly 6 to 7 months.d.with the experience gained, amendment of the items of repair was necessitated, as partial repairs of these items were not possible for guaranteed successful service life. the appellant says that it does ..... inter alia, associate builders.arbitral awards cannot be interfered with at the whims of the court unless cogent grounds are made out therefor. apart from the grounds of patent illegality and the like, one of the residuary grounds is that an arbitral award may be interfered with if at all fails to pass the wednesbury test of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-2017
..... submissions it would be appropriate to notice various provisions of the customs act, 1962, which was enacted with a view to consolidate and amend the law relating to customs as the experience has shown that the provisions of sea customs act, though were substantially amended by the sea customs (amendment act) 1955 could not effectively provide for dealing with all aspects relating to ..... a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. availability of other adequate remedies was not an absolute bar for grant of a writ when patent illegality was committed. since the said proposition of law was laid down by the supreme court in the state of uttar pradesh v. mohammed nooh (air 1958 sc 86 ..... common judgment: nooty ramamohana rao, j. 1. both these writ appeals are preferred under clause 15 of the letters patent, calling in question the correctness of the common order dated 02.06.2016 rendered by the learned single judge dismissing the two writ petitions instituted by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2017
..... to hold: 38. considering the traditionally recognised role of counsel in the common law system, and the evil sought to be remedied by parliament by the c.p.c. (amendment) act, 1976, namely, attainment of certainty and expeditious disposal of cases by reducing the terms of compromise to writing signed by the parties, and allowing the compromise decree to comprehend ..... selection and for enforceability of the special rules in that regard. therefore there is no patent conflict or inconsistency at all between the general and the special rules. in central bank of india v. state of kerala (2009) 4 scc94at 141-42, the non- ..... the general rules though later in point of time would abrogate the special rule the scope of which is very clear and which co-exists particularly when no patent conflict or inconsistency can be spelt out. as already noted rules 1(3)(a), 3(1) and 4 of the general rules themselves provide for promotion by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-21-2017
..... : further that all provided suits and applications transferred to the high court by virtue of sub-section (4) of section 22 of the designs act, 2000 (16 of 2000) or section 104 of the patents act, 1970 (39 of 1970) shall be heard and disposed of by the commercial division of the high court in all the areas over which ..... samsung india electronics limited, have filed the present intra-court appeal impugning the order dated 30th august, 2016 allowing application ia no.11621/2009 for amendment of the plaint.2. the application for amendment had stated that due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the plaintiffs, who are respondents fao (os) no.315/2016 page 1 of 8 ..... in force or any other instrument having effect by virtue of any law for the time being in force other than this act .12. the plaint raises a commercial dispute. this is undisputed. the application for amendment was decided by the commercial division of the high court as notified. the error made by the registry in not making necessary .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-04-2017
..... policy shall be finally and 17 2008 bus lr843:2007. ewca civ 1282 (ca) 21 fully determined in london, england under the provisions of the english arbitration act, 1950 as amended and that this policy shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the state of new york . (bus lr p. 847, para ..... india includes (a) the fundamental policy of india; or (b) the interests of india; or (c) justice or morality; or (d) in addition, if it is patently illegal. this extended definition of public policy can be bypassed by taking the award to a foreign country for enforcement. in the said case, the court scanned the shareholders agreement ..... findings are temporary arrangements to preserve the 35 36 37 (2009) 5 scc694kapila hingorani v. state of bihar, (2003) 6 scc1kapila hingorani v. state of bihar, (2005) 2 scc26241 status quo till the matter is finally decided, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. dealing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-03-2017
..... 8 scc600 counsel urged that since the claimant had sought the relief of specific performance of the contract, rather than refund of money, without amending its claim, in accordance with provisions of the specific relief act [particularly proviso to section 21 (5)]., the relief granted by the tribunal was contrary to law.10. it is urged on behalf ..... . in these circumstances, it cannot be held that grant of that relief, i.e. ` fao(os)(comm) 87/2016 page 9 of 10 25 lakhs is a patent illegality or that such damages are contrary, or unknown to law, or contrary to public policy.14. for the foregoing reasons, the court holds that there is no merit ..... not suffer from any infirmity. 8. mr. giriraj subramanium, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that the award is patently erroneous inasmuch as it is plainly contrary to section 21 (5) of the specific relief act. that provision, it is emphasized, clearly contemplates that no compensation shall be awarded as an alternative to a claim for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-25-2017
..... documents/evidence, is non- interferable under section 34 and if such interference is done by the court, the same will set at naught the whole purpose of amendment of the arbitration act.7. arbitration is intended to be a faster and less expensive alternative to the courts. if this is one s motivation and expectation, then the finality of ..... arbitrator has drawn an inference, from the facts, which, on the face of it, is unreasonable, or (g) the principles of natural justice have been violated. (v) the "patent illegality" had to go to the root of the matter. trivial illegalities were inconsequential. (vi) additionally, an award could be set aside if (a) either party was under some ..... to the fundamental policy of indian law, or (b) it is contrary to the interests of india, (c) it is contrary to justice or morality, (d) it is patently illegal, or (e) it is so perverse, irrational, unfair or unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court. (iv) an award would be liable to be regarded .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-16-2017
..... stipulated period of completion is equal to or less than the time as specified in |schedule f. above, as period the the due under clause covered clause10cc (post amendment) to payment in increase/decrease (excluding prices/wages materials under clause 10 (ca) after receipt of tender for works (page27) if the prices of materials ...............provisions of ..... the arbitrator only allowed escalation upto the date of actual completion of civil works which was 04.03.2011. the said view cannot be stated to be perverse or patently illegal and thus, no interference is called for on this o.m.p. (comm) 14/2017 page 7 of 11 count. the arbitrator also on similar principle ..... 10cc clearly indicated the rationale - which he described as the "thought process" - for explicitly amending the clause. it is relevant this stage, to mention that this court while 17. at considering a petition under section 34 of the act does not act as an appellate court and it is not open for this court to supplant its view over .....
Tag this Judgment!