APPEAL NO.662 OF 1995
16 Dec 2005The appeal arises from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 18 January 1996 in Arbitration Petition No.184 of...
Search Results for "arbitrator misconduct"
171 result(s) found
Found 171 result(s)
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Reinstates Arbitral Award in Construction Contract Dispute Under Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court held that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of error on the face of the award or misconduct, and the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence on extension of time, termination validity, and idle hire charges.
18 Jan 2022The dispute arose from a construction contract dated 16th November 1988 between a construction company (appellant-claimant) and the Union of India (re...
- 472
High Court
High Court of Bombay Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Construction Contract Dispute — Rejects Challenge Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Court holds that findings of fact by arbitrator are not open to reappraisal and that the arbitrator's interpretation of contract terms is final unless perverse.
14 Jan 2011The petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an arbitral a...
- 43
High Court
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Non-Consideration of Counter Claim in NSEIL Dispute. Failure to consider counter claim amounts to legal misconduct and violation of natural justice under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
18 Sep 2012The petitioner, Rajendra A. Shah (H.U.F.), a constituent, challenged an arbitral award dated 17th February 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consti...
- 10
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Arbitration Petition Challenging Arbitral Award on Grounds of Patent Illegality and Public Policy. Court sets aside award for ignoring contractual terms and failing to consider counterclaims.
29 Oct 2015The judgment concerns two arbitration petitions arising out of the same arbitral award. The petitioners (original respondents) challenged the award un...
- 115
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitrator's Procedural Order in Arbitration Proceeding. Section 9 or Section 19 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Cannot Be Invoked to Challenge Arbitrator's Communication Regarding Procedure.
28 Mar 2011The petitioner, Sahyadri Earthmovers, filed an Arbitration Petition under Section 9 read with Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...
- 66
High Court
High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitral Award in Construction Contract Dispute. Court holds that arbitrators are not bound to give reasons for each item of claim and that the award is not liable to be set aside for non-speaking nature under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
18 Jul 2006The appellant, Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao, a body corporate under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, entered into a contract dated 12/10/1985...
- 125
High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award for Being Beyond Stipulated Time — Arbitration Clause Mandates Award Within Four Months of Entering Reference, Failure Renders Award Void.
2 May 2012The appeal arose from an order of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court setting aside an arbitral award dated 17th August 2006 on the ground...
- 131
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitral Award Upholding Termination of LPG Distributorship for Misconduct. The court held that the appellant failed to prove absence of gross misconduct and that the arbitrator's findings were not perverse under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
12 Dec 2013The appellant, a distributor of Indane Gas under an agreement dated 29th February 2001 with the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., was alleged to...
- 57
High Court
High Court of Bombay Dismisses Appeal Against Remission of Arbitral Award for De Novo Consideration Due to Jurisdictional Error. Arbitrator Exceeded Jurisdiction by Entertaining Claims Not Raised Before Chief Engineer and Commissioner Under Contractual Pre-Arbitration Procedure.
24 Nov 2010The appellant, Biwater Penstocks Ltd., a UK-based company, entered into a contract with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (first respondent)...
- 117
