Back
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maverick Mobile Solution – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.:— The instant petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “The Act, 1996”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
(b) Summon the complete arbitral record from the Ld. Arbitrator before this Hon'ble court;
(c) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the Petitioner, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chander Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi 110001. The petitioner is a state-owned telecom company engaged in providing telecom services all over the country, except the cities of Mumbai and Delhi.
3. The respondent, M/S Maverick Mobile Solutions is a company incorporated under the Companies Act
Limited intervention of the Courts in arbitral proceedings is intended by the legislature. An Arbitral Award may only be set aside if it is patently illegal, against the public policy of India, based....
The limited scope of intervention by Courts in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need to satisfy specific grounds for setting aside an arbitral....
The Court held that the learned Arbitrator had erred in decreeing the award with respect to the rate of interest, and hence, the Award qua issue no. 20 with regards to the rate of interest is liable ....
The Court held that the impugned award with respect to Claim 7 was not well-reasoned as required by the Act under Section 31(3), and the impugned award with respect to the award in Claim 11 is contra....
Limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the Court's reluctance to re-adjudicate disputes on their merits.
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....
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
