TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Validates Award, Orders Payment with Interest</h1> <h3>HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD. Versus C. RAJASEKHAR RAO</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the timeliness of the award and rejected objections regarding errors of law on the face of the award. The Court confirmed the ... - Issues:1. Timeliness of the award2. Error of law on the face of the awardAnalysis:Timeliness of the award:The case involved an application by a construction company seeking to enforce an award made by an Umpire appointed by the Supreme Court. The respondent raised objections, claiming that the award was made beyond the stipulated time limit. The respondent argued that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to continue arbitration after a certain date. However, the Court held that the parties had willingly participated in the proceedings and had agreed to extend the time for the award. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized that the power to extend the time for the award could be granted by the parties themselves under certain circumstances. Therefore, the Court extended the time for the award, deeming it to have been given within the prescribed period.Error of law on the face of the award:The respondent contended that the award contained errors of law and inconsistent findings. The Court clarified that to set aside an award based on an error of law on the face of it, the legal proposition forming the basis of the award must be erroneous and explicitly stated in the award. The Court highlighted that in the absence of reasons given by the arbitrator, it was not permissible to speculate on the reasoning behind the award. The Court noted that the award in question did not provide legal propositions that were unsustainable or improper. As the award did not explain the rationale behind the decision, the Court rejected the challenge to the award. Consequently, the objections were dismissed, and a decree was issued in favor of the construction company, confirming the award made by the Umpire.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the timeliness of the award and rejected the objections raised regarding errors of law on the face of the award. The Court confirmed the award made by the Umpire and issued a decree in favor of the construction company, ordering the respondent to pay the specified amount with interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
