Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACJ, S Rachaiah
Mahadeva – Appellant
Versus
Arattukulam Developers – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and terms of joint development agreement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 2. breach of contract and responsibilities. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. court's analysis of arbitration award. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. order remanding case back to trial court. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
V KAMESWAR RAO, ACJ.
The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 04/04/2022 passed by the learned LXXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short) in Com.AP No.17/2020, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act of 1996’ for short).
2. The facts to be noted are, it is the case of the appellants that, they are the absolute owners of the converted lands bearing Sy.No.95 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas, Sy.No.96 measuring 4 acres 04 guntas, Sy.No.97/1 measuring 30 guntas, Sy.No.97/2 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas, Sy.No.99/3 measuring 29 guntas, in all measuring 9 acres 22 guntas, situated at Lingapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District.
3. The respondent No.1 is partnership firm and is represented by its one of the Partner Sri. Tony Vincen
The court affirmed that arbitral awards can only be set aside under Section 34 if grounds of patent illegality are established, emphasizing the sanctity and finality of arbitration decisions.
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....
An arbitral award can only be set aside on limited grounds as defined in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and claims are not barred by limitation if notice of refusal is not received.
Limited judicial interference under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act; no re-appreciation of arbitral findings absent patent illegality.
The court upheld the arbitral award, finding no unreasonable delay or jurisdictional errors, affirming the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence, as claims were not barred by limitation.
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....
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
