Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA
State of Rajasthan through the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Division Alwar, Alwar – Appellant
Versus
Devendra Pal Singh r/o 10, Poultry Estate, Agra Road, Jaipur – Respondent
Order :
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
1. The present miscellaneous appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act'), challenging the judgment dated 01.03.2011 passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Alwar in Civil Misc. Nos. 141/2005 and 474/2005, whereby the challenge to the arbitral award(s) under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the non-claimant/appellant has been dismissed.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned order, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Alwar in exercise of its powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has confirmed the award(s) passed by the learned Arbitrator.
3. Nevertheless as regards to an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (either setting aside the award or upholding the award) an appeal is provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, however, the contours of the proceedings under Section 37 are more limited in terms of scope and ambit of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
4. Therefore the short question that is posed for consideration before this court is, whether in the facts a
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the scope for setting aside an arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 is limited, emphasizing the need for substantial legal grounds and deference to arbi....
Appeal against arbitral award – Courts should not interfere with arbitral award lightly in a casual and a cavalier manner--Mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of contra....
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
Judicial scrutiny under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited; courts must respect arbitral awards unless proven to violate public policy or statutory obligations, affirming the principle t....
The jurisdiction of the court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the Award and order passed under Section 34 of the said Act is narrow and circumscribed.
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....
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
The court upheld the arbitral award, affirming that contractual obligations prevail over departmental instructions, and emphasized the limited scope of appellate review under the Arbitration and Conc....
Judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is significantly limited, focusing solely on jurisdictional errors or procedural irregularities with no reassessment....
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
