Allahabad HC: Right to Accessibility for PWDs Extends to Residential Parking, Lift Access; Upholds RPWD Act Order
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
MP High Court Refuses to Quash Defamation Cognizance Under Section 500 IPC: Exceptions to Section 499 to be Tested at Trial
14 Mar 2026
Setting Aside Trial Court Order Not Reflection On Judge's Integrity Unless Specific Remarks: Delhi High Court
14 Mar 2026
Auction Sale Confirmation Doesn't Bar Re-Valuation on Reserve Price Adequacy: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Farmers Can't Be Denied PMFBY Benefits for Bank's Data Entry Error on NCIP: Rajasthan High Court
14 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Summons Home Secretary for Delays in Mediator Fees & Victim Compensation: High Court of Kerala
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Unknown, J
Deshpande D. N. v. Tata Finance Ltd.
Headnote: Read headnote
1. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the Award dated 20th April 1994 filed in this Court on the ground that the Sole Arbitrator did not properly consider the merits of the claim of the Respondents and that the Arbitrator proceeded with the proceedings of the reference even after filing of the suit by the Petitioner in the Civil Court at Ambajogai challenging the agreement under which the claim in arbitration proceedings was made by the Respondents against the Petitioner.
2. An award is not vulnerable to any challenge thereto. The ambit and scope of challenge to an award under S.30 of the Arbitration Act , 1940 (for short, 'the Act') has now been laid down by the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court and other High Courts. Needless to say that when an arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties, an award is not open to the challenge on the ground that the arbitrator
Arbitration awards are not subject to judicial review on merits unless procedural errors are present as defined under the relevant Arbitration Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory period of limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be extended beyond 30 days, and the l....
An award can only be set aside on the grounds specified in section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and an arbitrator need not give a reasoned award.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the de jure ineligibility of the learned Sole Arbitrator to act as an Arbitrator in view of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ....
The Court's jurisdiction to interfere with non-speaking arbitration awards is limited; no contradictory findings justified setting aside the award.
The court modified an arbitration award, adjusting costs based on the petitioner's conduct and participation in proceedings.
The court reaffirmed that under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the grounds for setting aside an award are limited, and the sufficiency of reasons provided by the arbitrator is not subject to judicial rev....
The limited scope of interference in arbitral awards under section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the importance of documentary evidence in evaluating claims.
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
Listen Article