Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J., SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Asha Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Yukti Construction Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Upadhyay, J.
1. The present appeal from order under Section 37 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as “Arbitration Act”) has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Commercial Court, Dehradun in Arbitration Case No.25 of 2024 whereby the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellants was dismissed and the award passed by the sole arbitrator in claim petition filed by the respondents was affirmed.
2. The respondents claimed specific performance of an Agreement to Sale dated 05.01.2026 along with compensation /damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,00,000 for the purported willful breach of the contractual obligations by the appellants, or alternatively, the refund of the principal sum of Rs.1,10,00,000 purportedly paid by the respondents to the appellants under the term of the Agreement along with interest.
3. The agreement to sale dated 05.01.2016 was executed between the respondents and the appellants in reference to the plots of land being Khasra Nos. 52, 57 and 2045 in Khewat No.65, admeasuring 9.65 bigas out of 13.36 acres, on which a
Judicial intervention in arbitration cases is limited; courts should uphold arbitral awards unless they conflict with public policy or basic notions of justice.
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....
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 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....
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....
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 court confirmed that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited to cases of patent illegality or perverse findings, respecting the finality of arbitration.
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
