Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
PRAVIN S.PATIL
Rajlaxmi Multistate Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ashwini Anand Anchatwar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of Mr.Saurav P. Rajurkar, counsel for appellant and Mr R.R. Deo, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the application is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the Appellant/Multistate Credit Co-operative Society Limited to challenge the judgment and order passed by Principal District Judge, Yavatmal in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 221/2022, whereby the Arbitration Award passed in Arbitration Case No. ARB/RMCCSY/ylmb/911/2021 dated25/06/2022 is quashed and set aside.
3. The submission of the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned District Judge has transgressed the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1996’), thereby violating the settled principles of law which stipulate that scope of intervention of the Court in arbitral matters is restricted only to the limited grounds provided under of the Act of 1996.
4. It is further submitted that the case of respondent No.1 and 2 does not fall within any of the grounds pro
Arbitral award liable to be set aside under Section 34 for patent illegality where arbitrator assumes jurisdiction under Section 84 of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act without proof of borrowers....
Statutory arbitration under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act governs disputes between cooperatives and members, with a 6-year limitation period applying, overriding general limitation laws.
The court affirmed that statutory arbitration procedures were followed, and the appellants could not challenge the arbitrator's appointment after agreeing to arbitration in the loan agreement.
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....
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
(1) While exercising power under Section 34 of A & C Act, arbitral award can only be confirmed or set aside, but not modified.(2) Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal cannot be set aside on the ground t....
The Arbitrator's jurisdiction under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is not limited to express powers, allowing for broader application of authority to ensure justice.
The court established that challenges to an arbitrator's jurisdiction under Section 16 can only be raised after a final award, not as an interim appeal.
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.
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
