Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
SMC Global Securities Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Purushottam Kumar Khemani – Respondent
This is an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) challenging the order dated 25.01.2018 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.135/2014 whereby the application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was rejected.
2. Before proceeding on the facts leading to the filing of the instant Appeal, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is a power conferred upon the Court to set aside an arbitral award. It is well settled by various judgments of the Supreme Court that the power under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 conferred upon the Court is limited on the grounds specifically enumerated in Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The constricted powers under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 upon the Civil Court to interfere with an arbitral award is for the reason that when the parties have chosen to avail an alternative mechanism for dispute resolution, they must be left to reconcile themselves to the wisdom of the decision of the Arbitrator and the role of the Court should be restricted to the bare minimum. Interference would be justified only in the cases of commission of misconduct by the Arbitrator which
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....
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 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....
Point of Law; If the Appellate Court for the first time goes into the grounds urged and gives its own findings, perhaps one of the parties will be deprived of a right of statutory appeal provided in ....
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.
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
