Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
N. C. Roy Choudhury, J
Steel Authority of India Ltd v. Shyam Sundar Choudhury
Headnote: Read headnote
1. The Court - The claimant/respondent made a claim of Rs. 23,38,257/-. Initially, the matter was referred to arbitration and the authority of the erstwhile Arbitrator was revoked by this Court under the old Arbitration Act, 1940. This Court thereafter appointed Mr. N. C. Roy Choudhury, a senior Advocate of this Court as Arbitrator. The parties participated in the proceeding. There had been 100 and odd sittings. At the 106th sitting when the arbitration was nearing its completion, Counsel for the petitioner before me took certain technical objections including challenging the authority of the Arbitrator relying on a decision of mine reported in 2003 (4) Cal HN 163 in the case of Union of India v. Pioneer Construction . In Paragraph 11 of the said decision I held that as the letter of acceptance was a conditional one and unless and until that pre-condition was fulfilled it could not be said that there had been concluded contract. Since there had been no concluded contract, the arbitration Clause embodied therein could not be invoked. Citing this decis
The court modified an arbitration award, adjusting costs based on the petitioner's conduct and participation in proceedings.
The Court's jurisdiction to interfere with non-speaking arbitration awards is limited; no contradictory findings justified setting aside the award.
The Commercial Court has jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to fix arbitration fees, and the fees demanded by the Arbitrator were justified based on the claims made.
Courts may only set aside arbitration awards under specific grounds; the presence of reasoning by the arbitrator, while not mandatory, must be assessed for adequacy, but cannot be dismissed purely ba....
An arbitral award must provide clear and intelligible reasoning; lack thereof renders it void under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The absence of an agreement between the parties regarding costs and the consideration of the party's partial success in the reference influenced the Court's decision regarding the award of arbitratio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restricted jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the principles for interference with ar....
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