SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Bom) 306

V.C.DAGA
Laxmi Mathur – Appellant
Versus
Chief General Manager, MTNL, Mumbai – Respondent


JUDGMENT - VIJAY DAGA, J.:---The petition is directed against an award dated 3-11-1999 delivered by the Arbitrator Shri Sunil K. Garg, Deputy General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai, who had been appointed as sole Arbitrator as per order of this Court dated 12-2-1999 in Arbitration Petition No. 430 of 1998 to decide the dispute between the parties, arising out of the an agreement dated 24-10-1995.

2.The question sought to be canvassed before me is that the impugned award passed by the learned Arbitrator, referred to hereinabove is not legal and valid as the Arbitrator has recorded findings and failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances brought on record of the arbitration proceeding. In the submissions of the petitioner, the impugned award is therefore, liable to be set aside in exercise of the powers under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act' for short).

3.In the light of the above submissions, the question which arises for my consideration is an to whether the impugned award needs to be set aside under section 34 of the Act ?

4.It would be most appropriate at this stage to take note of the facts resultin

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top