M.B.SHAH, ARUN KUMAR
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SAW Pipes LTD. – Respondent
No.
This decision concerns a domestic arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arising from a contract between Indian parties (ONGC and SAW Pipes Ltd.) for supply of goods in India, challenged before the Mumbai High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court of India. [legal_document start] (!) (!) (!) [1000078100001][1000078100002] (!) [1000078100030][1000078100031][1000078100032][1000078100069] (!) (!)
The judgment explicitly interprets the scope of court jurisdiction under Section 34 for setting aside such domestic awards, distinguishing it from foreign awards under Section 48 (which involve enforcement post-finality and narrower public policy grounds). (!) [1000078100003] (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000078100018] (!) [1000078100019][1000078100020] (!) [1000078100029] (!)
Judgment
Shah, J.—Court s jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966
Before dealing with the issues involved in this appeal, we would first decide the main point in controversy, namely - the ambit and scope of Court s jurisdiction in case where award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as the decision in this appeal would depend upon the said finding. In other words - whether the Court would have jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act to set aside an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal which is patently illegal or in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any other substantive law governing the parties or is against the terms of the contract?
2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Ashok Desai appearing for the appellant submitted that in case where there is clear violation of Sections 28 to 31 of the Act or the terms of the Contract between the parties, the said award can be and is required to be set aside by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act.
3. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh
Re: Modi & Co. v. Union of India
Sir Chunilal v. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
M/s. Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. The Union of India
Union of India v. A.I. Rallia Ram
Dhanna Lal v. Kalawatibai & Ors.
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr.
Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Ashok Nawaz Jung (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.
Delta International Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwalla & Anr.
Union of India v. Rampur Distillery & Chemical Co. Ltd.
Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry
M/s. H.M. Kamaluddin Ansari & Co. v. Union of India & Ors.
Re: Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr.
Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim
G.M., Northern Railway & Anr. v. Sarvesh Chorpa
Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Sterilite Industries (India) & Anr.
Bhai Panna Singh & Ors. v. Bhai Arjun Singh & Ors.
M.V. Elisabeth & Ors. v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.