Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Modi Enterprises Registered Partnership Firm, Registered – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. All these appeals have been filed by appellant-non-claimant Union of India through the General Manager North Western Railway, Jaipur (hereafter 'the Northern Railways') invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the A&C Act of 1996") assailing the order dated 21-11-2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur under Section 34 of the A&C Act of 1996 to set aside the arbitral award dated 17-7- 2010 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in favour of respondent claimant firms (hereafter 'the claimant firms').
Since in all these appeals the impugned order and arbitral awards are verbatim involving common issues, hence, with consent of learned counsel for both parties, these appeals were heard together and would stand decided by this common order. SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.971/2017 is taken as a lead case.
2. Relevant facts which may be recapitulated succinctly are that Northern Railways in the year 1992-93, during undertaking the process of conversion of the Railway track from meter gauge to broad gauge, awarded a contract to claimants for supply and stacking of 21000 cum 6
The limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the A&C Act of 1996 and the requirement for an arbitral award to be suffering from patent illegality for it to be set aside.
The courts have a limited scope of interference under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, and the Arbitral Tribunal's detailed consideration of evidence and claims is final.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award are limited and must fall within the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation A....
(1) Appeal against modified arbitral award – Merits of award are only to be gone into, if award is demonstrated to be contrary to public policy of India.(2) Arbitral proceedings are per se not compar....
The court upheld the validity of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference and the necessity of demonstrating clear error or illegality.
The court established that the discretion to remit an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should only be exercised when there are curable defects in the awa....
The Court held that the Arbitral Award does not suffer from any infirmities enshrined in Section 34 of the Act. The Impugned is not in conflict with the public policy of India. Further, the learned T....
The judgment emphasizes the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, highlighting the need for restraint by courts while examini....
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
