Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
National Highways Authority Of India – Appellant
Versus
Kanubhai Bhikhabhai Gujariya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.
1. The only issue raised in these appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act’ 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1996’), is to the propriety of the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajula passed under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 while setting aside the Arbitral award holding that the Arbitrator had passed the award without considering the substantive laws and the evidence on record, the Court has proceeded to decide two issues pertaining to the claim of the applicant for additional compensation on merits by appreciation of evidence on record.
2. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022 passed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 indicates that the Court framed nine issues as under:
1. Whether applicants can point out that impugned order passed by the learned arbitrator case No. 118/2019, Dt. 04/06/2021 is erroneous, capricious and perverse and or is required to set aside on the ground of patent illegality?
2. Whether the applicants / appellants prove that, the disputed arbiter award is in conflict wi
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "questioned" that suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of these precedents. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, no cases are identified as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed]
Both cases appear to reaffirm or clarify existing legal principles without indicating any adverse treatment.
Case <00100036579> discusses the validity of partial awards and the scope of arbitration, reaffirming the legal position that partial awards are valid and within the jurisdiction of arbitrators. It also clarifies that the construction of contracts falls within arbitral jurisdiction.
Case <00100059801> clarifies the limited scope of courts' powers under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing that courts can only adjourn proceedings upon a written application, reaffirming the limited judicial interference in arbitration proceedings.
[Distinguished / Clarified]
No explicit mention of cases being distinguished from other precedents or clarified in a manner that alters their legal standing is present in the provided summaries.
Both cases are presented as authoritative statements without indications of subsequent treatment, overruing, or criticism.
The language used suggests these are considered good law, but the absence of references to subsequent judicial treatment makes their current standing uncertain. However, based on available information, they appear to be valid and unchallenged.
**Source :** Mcdermott International Inc. VS Burn Standard Co. LTD. - Supreme Court Kinnari Mullick VS Ghanshyam Das Damani - Supreme Court
The court clarified that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the scope of review is limited to setting aside awards for patent illegality or public policy violations, not for modification.
The court established that under statutory arbitration for land acquisition, the authority must ensure fair compensation based on proper assessment and documentation, highlighting a constitutional ob....
The court upheld the authority to modify arbitration awards in compensation cases if the original decision is perverse or against public policy, ensuring fair compensation is granted to landowners.
Court held that an arbitrator cannot remand matters back to competent authority after initial determination, affirming the arbitrary powers under Section 3G(5) of NHAI Act and the doctrine of acquies....
Point of Law : Once the time-limit or extended time-limit for challenging the arbitral award expires, the period for enforcing the award under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act commences.
The court affirmed the discretion under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to remit matters to the Arbitrator for reconsideration of solatium, following the Supreme Court's ruling ....
The court upheld the discretion under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to remit matters to the Arbitrator for addressing gaps in the award, particularly regarding solatium.
Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court cannot modify an arbitral award through reappraisal of evidence or merits; it is restricted to grounds explicitly stated in the....
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
