Back
ARAVIND KUMAR, N. V. ANJARIA
Ramesh Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. examination of arbitration award and legal basis. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. high court's reasoning for setting aside the arbitral award. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. appellant's argument on the high court's overreach. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. respondent's counterarguments against the arbitral award. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. parameters for judicial intervention in arbitral awards. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 6. restoration of arbitral award based on lawful principles. (Para 39 , 41 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Heard. Leave Granted.
2. We have been called upon to examine the correctness of the Judgement and order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in ARBA No. 05 of 2017 whereby the arbitral award dated 15.07.2012 passed by the sole Arbitrator awarding a sum of Rs. 3,71,80,584 (Three crores seventyone lacs eighty thousand five hundred eighty-four only) along with the statutory interest to the appellant, affirmed by the Commercial Court by judgement and order dated 02.01.2017 in MJC No. 33/16 while exercising jurisdiction under section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “A&C Act”) has been set aside by the High Court in exercise o
Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited, focusing on patent illegality and public policy; courts should respect arbitrators' decisions unless they lack evidence or contravene explicit terms of ....
The court affirmed that an entity can claim compensation for work performed under a non-finalized contract if the work was conducted at the direction of another party, underscoring the principle of q....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
The court upheld the validity of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference and the necessity of demonstrating clear error or illegality.
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
