Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Mahesh Jayramdas Meghrajani – Appellant
Versus
Umesh Ratilal Shah – Respondent
ORDER :
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Heard Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, the learned senior advocate, with Mr. Manav Mehta and Ms. Ankeeta Rajput, the learned advocates appearing for the appellants and Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, the learned senior advocate with Mr. Aditya Mehta for Universal Legal for the respondent No.4 and the learned advocate Mr. Harsh Gajjar for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5.3 and perused the record.
2. The two connected Appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been filed against the judgment and order 24.10.2018 dismissing the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1996’), upholding the award dated 17.02.2012 and the additional award dated 30.11.2013 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator.
3. The main question before us is about the scope and purport of Section 33 of the Act, 1996. To deal with the controversy at hand, certain relevant facts are to be noted at this stage. Pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the deed of partnership, the dispute between the partners of M/s. Rupam Cinema Enterprise, a partnership firm was
The arbitrator cannot review its own award on merits; only clerical or computational errors can be corrected under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The arbitral tribunal cannot modify its award on merits under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; it is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.
Court affirmed limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing non-interference with arbitral awards unless specific grounds are established, rejecting claims of arbitral....
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.
Parties are estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of an Arbitrator after consenting to proceed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Awards were upheld as not conflicting wit....
The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the Tribunal unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair minded person could do.
Scope of an arbitration agreement is limited to the parties who entered into it and those claiming under or through them, Courts under English Law have, in certain cases, also applied the 'Group of C....
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
