Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Prasenjit Biswas
Debojit Dey – Appellant
Versus
Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of arbitration appeal regarding allotment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. payment delays and alleged contract violations. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. scope of court's review under section 34. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. validity of contract termination and arbitration findings. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 5. court's agreement with arbitration decision. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated October 3, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 185 of 2014.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned District Judge has dismissed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the appellant subha karmakar Digitaly signed by subha karmakar Date: 2025.08.27 assailing the award dated August 14, 2014 passed by the learned arbitrator, Mr. Paritosh Kumar Pal.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the appellant pursuant to an advertisement dated May 8, 2009 applied for a flat in a project executed by the respondent. He has contended that, a residential apartment being Flat No.
The scope of judicial intervention in arbitration awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to assessing procedural validity, not merits of the case.
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 upheld the arbitration award, confirming the appellant's breach of contract and the limited scope of judicial review under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Judicial intervention in arbitration cases is limited; courts should uphold arbitral awards unless they conflict with public policy or basic notions of justice.
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 Letter of Intent issued in an auction is not binding until all payment conditions are satisfied, and a petitioner cannot invoke arbitration provisions prior to issuing a letter of allotment.
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
