Back
PARESH UPADHYAY, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. Rep. by its Executive Director, Ragu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
J. Vengatesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under 37(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Judge of the Original Side of this Court passed in O.P.No.235 of 2008, dated 19.08.2019 and allow the above appeal.)
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
A. The Appeal:
1. This intra-Court appeal is filed against the order of the learned Judge, dated 19.08.2019, whereby, the learned Judge allowed the Original Petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and set aside the award, dated 21.01.2008 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of the appellant, which was in the nature of specific performance of the contract being the sale of plots and instead, awarded a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the appellant.
B. The Facts in brief:
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- The appellant and the respondents 1 to 3 entered into an agreement of sale, dated 17.02.2004. As per the same, the respondents are the owners of the property mentioned in the schedule to the agreement totally admeasuring 8.21 acres in Manapakkam
An arbitral award that contravenes the terms of the underlying agreement is patently illegal and can be set aside by the court, regardless of prior pleadings on jurisdiction.
The court upheld the arbitral award, affirming that specific performance can be granted based on a composite understanding derived from multiple correspondence and agreements, emphasizing the need fo....
The court reiterated that a party's failure to perform contractual obligations negates the other's right to enforce the contract, emphasizing limited interference in arbitral awards.
The court upheld the arbitral award, finding no unreasonable delay or jurisdictional errors, affirming the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence, as claims were not barred by limitation.
The arbitrator's decision is final, and interference by the Court is limited. The Court cannot re-assess evidence or substitute its own evaluation of the conclusion of law or fact.
The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with....
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
