Share
clock Created with Sketch.
08/09/14
10:02
Share
Originally posted by rocket973
↑
Hiphop, I'll wait till the outcome of the Supreme Court case is known, although I agree with your thoughts.
I believe that IRL management have made a serious blunder in pushing through this cheap placement to RCF when they know that the Supreme Court Case Judgement is imminent.
Surely Directors consider that IRL has more than a fair chance of winning the case otherwise its a dereliction of duty to shareholders to pursue the case for so long without a reasonable chance of success.
Might have been smarter if the Directors had of done a bit of research on previous cases as well as the Judges who are sitting on the Case ie Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Justice P.C.Ghose as this gives an insight into the possible chances of success.
Not sure whether they are that smart.
Whilst these two Judges have only been sitting together on a few Cases just recently, it is possible to view past Judgements by these Judges separately. I've spend some time researching previous Judgements by these Judges and other similar Cases and of course its really hard to know which way they will view the evidence particularly when you don't even know the full details of the contract. But the Directors know all the ins and outs of the Surda Contract, hopefully.
Its possible the chances of success are increasing now that it has taken more than a week for the decision. I am mindful however of the fact that in past Judgements these Supreme Court Judges are reluctant to overturn previous Judgements or Arbitration decisions.
"Court would not be justified in reappraising the material on record and substituting its own view in place of the Arbitrator’s view."
Unless there is significant new evidence or the Supreme Court Judges consider that the Arbitrator has made a legal mistake.
"Where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or the Arbitrator has not followed the statutory legal position, then and then only it would be justified in interfering with the award published by the Arbitrator"
If the Surda Contract is so poorly written that there is the possibility of different views of the actual meaning of the contract, then it is likely that the original Arbitration decision will be upheld.
"Once the Arbitrator has applied his mind to the matter before him, the Court cannot reappraise the matter as if it were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view taken by the Arbitrator would prevail."
So I hope that Directors have come up with some new information or can prove that the previous Arbitrator has not followed statutory legal positions otherwise all they have done is pour more money down the drain.
All will be known soon, might be time then to judge our Directors. It will be an interesting week.
Expand
I would hazard a guess that the case was based on the assertion that the Arbitrator has not followed the statutory legal position.Perhaps the Supreme Court knew this and that's why it was accepted to be heard (I'm being very hopeful here).
Nevertheless, we will wait and see. A win would be the break we need prior to Aravalli.
FYI I found this (scholarly article?) titled" A QUATITATIVE AALYSIS OF
THE IDIA SUPREME COURT’S WORKLOAD"
(if link doesn't work can just google it)
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...=2pmcOTPZfq-AALDGXl3KnQ&bvm=bv.74649129,d.c2E
Cheers
HH