Back
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Bhupesh Bhayana – Appellant
Versus
Kunal Seth – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Arbitration proceedings dating back to September, 2012, culminated in cross appeals by both parties under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.1 [hereinafter ‘the Arbitration Act’] The common judgment dated 27.09.2023 passed in the said appeals by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is presently under challenge by one of the parties.
3. By order dated 10.07.2024, this Court directed the appellants to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- before the High Court without prejudice to their rights and contentions. Disbursal of that amount to the respondents was made subject to the final outcome of these cases. On 05.12.2025, this Court stayed further proceedings in OMP (ENF)(COMM) No. 54 of 2024, the execution petition filed by the respondents before the Delhi High Court in relation to the arbitral award in question.
4. The genesis of this litigation is the agreement dated 09.04.2010 entered into by the father of appellant No. 1, late Sudershan Kumar Bhayana, and his mother, Kiran Bhayana, appellant No. 2, with late Vinod Seth, the father of respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2. This agreement entailed reconstruction of t
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the appeal against the arbitration award, confirming that there was no patent illegality or grounds for interference under the Arbitration and Concilia....
The Court's power while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is limited, and it cannot undertake an independent assessment on the merits of the Award.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contract terms, breach of contract, and the limited scope of interference with the arbitrator's award based on the violation ....
Point of law : Merely because under Clause 10.3 of the agreement the allottee is entitled to issue notice and following the procedure thereunder to terminate the agreement the appellant cannot conten....
The appellate jurisdiction under section 37 is limited to the grounds prescribed under section 34. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views for that of the arbitrator, provided ....
Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of perversity or violation of public policy.
The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
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
