Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Neela Gokhale
MPD Associates Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Angel Broking Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of arbitration proceedings and petitioner’s claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the validity of the award. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of the jurisdiction and procedural fairness in arbitration. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. conclusion regarding the lack of jurisdiction objection. (Para 20) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Neela Gokhale, J.
1. The Petitioner has assailed the arbitral award dated 27th March 2008 passed by a panel of three arbitrators, by way of the present Arbitration Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’).
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:-
2.1 A reference was made to the Arbitral Tribunal under the Rules, Bye - laws and Regulations of the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (‘BSE’).
2.2 The Petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, stated to be engaged in social and charitable activities in the areas of public and rural healthcare. The Respondent is a corporate member-broker of BSE since 1997, registered with the Security Exchange Board of
A party must raise jurisdictional objections in arbitration proceedings; failure to do so waives the right to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The judgment emphasizes that an award in an international commercial arbitration cannot be challenged on the ground of perversity and that the Court will not interfere with the award unless there is ....
A party to an arbitration agreement cannot dispute findings based on contractual obligations unless evidence of connection between claims exists; otherwise, set-offs are inapplicable.
An arbitration award cannot be invalidated for unilateral appointment of arbitrators if the parties had the opportunity to nominate their respective arbitrators through an independent institute, main....
An arbitral tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim against a third party arising out of a private transaction not governed by an arbitration clause.
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a limited window of challenge to an arbitral award, and a violation of a statute, not tied to public policy or public interest, cannot serv....
The court held that unilateral appointment of arbitrators by one party without consent is invalid, leading to lack of jurisdiction for the Arbitral Tribunal and grounds to set aside the award.
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
