Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MUKTA GUPTA, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Urmil Modi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)--An appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996") read with Section 13 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been filed against the order dated 20th March, 2018 vide which the objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has been allowed and the appellant is directed to pay Rs.18,20,982.75 to the respondent along with interest @ 6% per annum.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 2013. It is a Member of National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) and provides trading in shares and securities in the cash market as well as the derivative market. The respondent opened a Demat-cum-Trading Account somewhere in the year 2007 with the appellant for the purpose of buying and selling of shares on the platform of National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange respectively with Angel Capital & Debt Marketing Ltd. (ACDL) and Angel Broking Ltd. (ABL). Both the Companies subsequently merged and amalgamated into Angel Broking (Pvt.) Ltd. The respondent in her claim before the Arbitrator had stated that she had been dealing
The court emphasized that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it cannot modify arbitral awards but can only set them aside on limited grounds, reaffirming the exclusivity of arbitral tribunal au....
Judicial review of arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited, focusing on adherence to public policy and fundamental legal principles.
The court established that an arbitral award can be set aside if it contravenes the principles of natural justice and public policy, particularly when crucial evidence is introduced after the conclus....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited power of the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award and the prohibition on....
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.
(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 court clarified that its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to setting aside the arbitral award based on specific grounds and does not extend to modi....
The main legal point established is that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court can partially or wholly set aside an Arbitral Award if the claims are separable and ....
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
