Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.KAMESWAR RAO, S.RACHAIAH
Jayaram Pathak, S/o. K.M. Pathak – Appellant
Versus
Babla K. Somaiah, S/o. Late K. Somaiah, Represented By His GPA Holder, Jagadish K. Somaiah, S/o. Late. K.D. Somaiah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
The challenge in this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Act of 1996’) is to an order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, whereby the petition filed under Section 34 Act of 1996 challenging the award dated 22.04.2013, has been rejected.
2. Some of the facts which are required to be noted are that, the respondent, who was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator and the respondent before the Sessions Judge, had entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant in respect of a residential flat bearing No.G-1 on the ground floor having built up area under 1700 sq. ft. along with undivided interest of 656 sq. ft. in the whole property for a consideration of 29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs only). The case of the respondent before the learned Arbitrator was that the appellant had unilaterally changed the flat from G-1 to G-3. The appellant had also failed to furnish the necessary Khatha certificate; the approved building plan to enable the respondent avail the finance of Rs.30.97,900/- from the ICICI Bank.
3. Despite that, the respondent had paid an amou
The court upheld the arbitration award, confirming the appellant's breach of contract and the limited scope of judicial review under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The scope of judicial intervention in arbitration awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to assessing procedural validity, not merits of the case.
Point of Law; If the Appellate Court for the first time goes into the grounds urged and gives its own findings, perhaps one of the parties will be deprived of a right of statutory appeal provided in ....
Judicial intervention in arbitration cases is limited; courts should uphold arbitral awards unless they conflict with public policy or basic notions of justice.
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
The court reaffirmed that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope for judicial interference with arbitral awards is limited, focusing on procedural compliance and th....
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
