2009 (9) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Petitioner C.N. Sree Kumar, P.R. Nayak and D. Parashar for the Respondent ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed impugning the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 13.11.2002 whereby the learned judges of the High Court, on an appeal by the respondent from a judgment by the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, dated 1.1.1991, were pleased ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere raised before the arbitrator. After examining the rival contentions, the arbitrator gave an award dated 16.03.1990 for an amount of Rs. 19,51,334.25 with interest at the rate of 10% on Rs. 18,86,700.23, the principal amount, from the date of award to the date of decree. The claimant then applied for making the award into 'rule of the court' and, vide order dated 1.1.1991, the III Additional Su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... judges, however, did not interfere. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and we have perused the award. The award runs into considerable detail as it is a speaking award. While dealing with this part of the claim, the arbitrator in paragraph 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13 of the award has given detailed reasons. We are of the view that the settled position in law is that court should not substitute i....