Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, AJAY DIGPAUL
Chopra Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Late Jatinder Nath S/o Shri Sohan Lal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
1. By way of the present appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Hereinafter “A&C Act”] the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 21.05.2025 [Hereinafter “impugned judgment”] passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, South, Saket Courts, Delhi [Hereinafter “Commercial Court”] in OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2020.
2. The learned Commercial Court, vide the impugned judgment, while holding that the arbitral award dated 02.11.2019 [Hereinafter “arbitral award”] passed by Justice Indermeet Kaur (Retd.) [Hereinafter “Arbitrator”] does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity, nevertheless proceeded to set aside the arbitral award whereby appellant no.2 had been fastened with liability for the obligations of appellant no. 1.
Factual Matrix
3. The dispute between the parties, namely Mr. Jatinder Nath [Hereinafter “respondent”] and appellant no. 1, a company engaged in the business of real estate and represented through its director, appellant no. 2, arises out of protracted litigation spanning a long period of time. During the pendency of the proceedings, both the respondent and appellant no. 2
Arbitration proceedings validly commenced under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act on notice dated 20.08.1992; findings on completion and cost claims affirmed due to lack of evidence.
The court affirmed that arbitral awards challenging under Sections 34 and 37 are limited in scope, requiring clear evidence of illegality or perversion; otherwise, the Arbitrator's decision stands.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of perversity or violation of public policy.
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
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
