Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, K.MANMADHA RAO
Muddegowdara Veerabhadrappa – Appellant
Versus
G.M. Virupakshappa S/o Shri Maheshwarappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction over appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of partnership and asset purchase. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. disputed claims about loan and awards. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arguments regarding trial court's decisions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. procedural disputes and document production. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. arbitrator's findings on financial disputes. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. limitations on court's power under arbitration law. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. final judgment on appeals and upholding of arbitration. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
1. The Commercial Appeal as well as the Miscellaneous First Appeal arise out of the Order dated 05.01.2021 passed in A.S.No.4/2018, by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court').
2. Heard Shri. Arun B.M, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in COMAP No.68/2021 and respondents No.2 and 3 in MFA No.1654/2021. Shri. Unnikrishnan M, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 in COMAP No.68/2021 and appellants No.1 and 2 in MFA No.1654/2021 and Shri. Shivashankar S.K, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3(a) and (b) in COMAP No.
The Court affirmed the arbitral award, stressing limited interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, reaffirming that reappraisal of evidence by trial courts is unwarranted in arbitration d....
An Arbitrator must conclusively resolve all disputes; failure to do so constitutes misconduct, justifying remand for a fresh award rather than outright annulment.
The scope for judicial interference with arbitral awards is minimal, and intervention is limited to instances of patent illegality or perverse findings according to Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitrat....
The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the Tribunal unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair minded person could do.
The arbitrator cannot review its own award on merits; only clerical or computational errors can be corrected under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court clarified the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and the bar contained in Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1962 to transactions involving propert....
Monetary liabilities among partners must be determined post-account settlement, and independent claims contrary to an arbitral award are not maintainable.
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
