Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, OM NARAYAN RAI
Ashiana Represented by its Proprietor Ashoke Kumar Shaw – Appellant
Versus
Biva Dutta Roy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated February 8, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, North-24 Parganas, in Misc. Case No. 47 of 2017 [Arbitration] being an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘1996 Act’). The application was filed challenging an arbitral award dated December 12, 2016, passed by a learned sole Arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding initiated by the opposite party no. 1 herein (claimant and in short referred to as ‘Biva’) against the appellant and the proforma respondents herein (compendiously referred to as ‘Ashiana’).
2. Three partnership deeds were executed by and between Biva and Ashiana for developing three different properties. Under a partnership deed dated July 19, 2003, the partners proposed to build an apartment called ‘Bhagawati Apartment’. By another partnership deed dated July 19, 2003, the partners proposed to construct ‘Shyamkunj Apartment’. By a third partnership deed dated January 25, 2002, the partners decided to construct ‘Subhankar Apartment’.
3. All the three projects were completed. Biv
Court affirmed limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing non-interference with arbitral awards unless specific grounds are established, rejecting claims of arbitral....
Arbitrator's award regarding goodwill valuation upheld, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial intervention under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
An Arbitrator must conclusively resolve all disputes; failure to do so constitutes misconduct, justifying remand for a fresh award rather than outright annulment.
Parties are estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of an Arbitrator after consenting to proceed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Awards were upheld as not conflicting wit....
The arbitrator cannot review its own award on merits; only clerical or computational errors can be corrected under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the Tribunal unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair minded person could do.
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
