Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Krishan Kumar v. Rajmal & Anr.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
C.R. No.6175 of 2008
Krishan Kumar
v.
Rajmal & Anr.
{Decided on 24/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17--Amendment of pleading--Plaint sought to be amended--Suit for mandatory injunction--Trench/Khai alleged to be in existence abutting to northern wall--Amendment sought--Plea that it is in fact towards eastern wall--Typographical mistake only--Suit fixed for filing replication and framing of these--Amendment allowed.
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17--Amendment of pleading--Plaint sought to be amended--Suit for mandatory injunction--Amendment sought to claim relief of damages caused due to digging up trench/Khai cracks have appeared on the wall--Relief claimed to be added is incidental to main relief--Amendment allowed.
------------
Harpreet Singh v. M/s International Cars & Motors Ltd.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar
Arbitration Case No. 28 of 2008
Harpreet Singh
v.
M/s International Cars and Motors Ltd. & Anr.
{Decided on 24/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 11--Lease deed between the parties--Arbitration clause in lease deed--Claim regarding recovery of lease amount--Sought to be resisted on the ground of referable to arbitrator--When claim is of mere recovery of lease amount then dispute can be referred to arbitrator.
---------------
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2547 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha
Civil Appeal No. 5241 of 2002
Steel Authority of India Ltd.
v.
Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd.
{Decided on 09/09/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Award--Setting aside of--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--Compensation for liquidated damage--Where arbitrator has given elaborate reasons that compensation clause of Contract is not attracted for breaches for which compensation is claimed and such view is possible view--In circumstances award is not amenable to correction by the Court.
(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.136--Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30/33--Award--Setting aside of--Jurisdiction of--Arbitrator--Court below concurrently held that arbitrator has gone into issues of facts toughly, applied his mind to pleadings evidence before him and terms of contract and then passed duly considered award--No ground for setting aside award made out--View of arbitrator is possible view--No Interference. (P.38) (B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30/33--Arbitrator--Jurisdiction Decisions of Supreme Court summarised -
(i) In a case where an arbitrator travels beyond the contract, the award would be without jurisdiction and would amount to legal misconduct and because of which the award would become amenable for being set aside by a Court.
(ii) An error relatable to interpretation of the contract by an arbitrator is an error within his jurisdiction and such error is not amenable to correction by Courts as such error is not an error on the face of the award.
(iii) If a specific question of law is submitted to the arbitrator and he answers it, the fact that the answer involves an erroneous decision in point of law does not make the award bad on its face.
(iv) An award contrary to substantive provision of law or against the terms of contract would be patently illegal.
(v) Where the parties have deliberately specified the amount of compensation in express terms, the party who has suffered by such breach can only claim the sum specified in the contract and not in excess thereof. In other words, no award of compensation in case of breach of contract, if named or specified in the contract, could be awarded in excess thereof.
(vi) If the conclusion of the arbitrator is based on a possible view of the matter, the court should not interfere with the award.
(vii) It is not permissible to a court to examine the correctness of the findings of the arbitrator, as if it were sitting in appeal over his findings.
(C) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30 & 33--Award--Setting aside of--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--Compensation for liquidated damage--View of arbitrator that breach due to refusal on part of SAIL to supply materials do not fall within ambit of relevant terms contained in compensation clause 7.2 of agreement and that section 74 of contract act is not-applicable--It founded on diverse grounds elaborately discussed in award--Such view is possible view on construction of clause 7.2--Not found absurd, or perverse or unreasonable by any three Courts below--No case of jurisdiction under Section 136 of Constitution. (P.31)
(D) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30 & 33--Award--Setting aside of--Jurisdiction of arbitrator--Compensation for liquidated damage--Where arbitrator has given elaborate reasons that compensation clause of Contract is not attracted for breaches for which compensation is claimed and such view is possible view--In circumstances award is not amenable to correction by the Court. (P.32)
(E) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.136--Special leave petition--New plea--Cannot be allowed to be raised in an appeal under Article 136 which was not raised before High Court. (P.36)
(F) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.30 & 33--Contract Act, S.74--In absence of any agreement specifying damage for breach alleged Section 74 not attracted. (P.33)
——————