Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Mangalam Cement Limited – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
1. These appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, assailing the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Commercial Court No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, whereby the common arbitral award dated 18.02.2015 and the subsequent order dated 17.05.2015 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator were set aside. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
2. At this juncture, it is pertinent to clarify that the present batch of appeals has been preferred by two sets of parties, firstly, the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the RRVUNL”), and secondly, the cement companies, namely Mangalam Cement Limited, Birla Corporation Limited, Shree Cement Limited, ACC Limited, and Ultratech Cement Limited, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the claimants”)
3. Since the factual matrix, contractual framework, and the controversy involved in all these appeals are substantially identical, this Court considers it appropriate to decide the entire batch by a common judgment. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the fa
Judicial modification of an arbitral award is permitted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, allowing courts to ensure efficient dispute resolution while preventing redundant arb....
A Section 34 court cannot modify an arbitral award, as established by the Supreme Court in Hakeem, which overruled previous case law allowing such modifications.
The appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
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....
The court affirmed that under Section 34, a Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to reappraise evidence in arbitral awards and may only modify awards for clear errors, not on merits.
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
