Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, PRAVEEN KUMAR
Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Tirhut Food Products – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the insurance claim and arbitration (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. contentions of the appellant regarding arbitral process (Para 9 , 10 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. judicial review of arbitral award (Para 12 , 13 , 25 , 27) |
| 4. violation of natural justice in arbitration proceedings (Para 17 , 18 , 36) |
| 5. concluding judgment and orders of the court (Para 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Heard Mr. Hrishikesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent.
2. This Commercial Appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996’) read with Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2015’) for setting aside the judgment dated 23rd day of July, 2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge-XIV Court, Patna in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 173 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge, XIV Court, Patna has refused to interfere with the arbitral award dated 25th August, 2021 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
Brief Facts of the Case
3. It is a matter o
A tribunal must follow natural justice principles, allowing parties to present evidence; failure to do so renders an award susceptible to being set aside.
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 upheld the validity of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference and the necessity of demonstrating clear error or illegality.
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
Under Section 34, courts cannot interfere with arbitral awards based on joint departmental reconciliations and admissions unless patent illegality apparent on award's face; limited to upholding final....
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
