Section 34 Archives

Award passed after an inordinate and unexplained delay will be contrary to justice and will defeat justice: Delhi High Court

India has long hoped to become an arbitration hub and providing time bound mechanisms for resolving disputes will certainly be a feather in the cap. Introducing Section 29A by way of amendment is therefore intentioned to ensure that the disputes in arbitration are adjudicated in a time-bound manner.

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court finds no ground for interference as reappreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of Section 37 Arbitration Act

The scope of a challenge under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 Arbitration Act.

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court applies the rule of ‘contra proferentem’ to uphold the arbitral award not being hit by ‘patent illegality’

The ground of Patent illegality gives way to setting aside an Arbitral Award with a very minimal scope of intervention. A party cannot simply raise an objection on the ground of patent illegality if the Award is simply against them. Patent illegality requires a distinct transgression of law, the clear lack of which thereof makes the petition simply a pointless effort of objection towards an Award made by a competent Arbitral Tribunal.

Case Briefs High Courts

Why Delhi High Court upheld the award of damages passed by Single Judge on account of mental agony and harassment in the case of a commercial contract?

All that the respondent wished for was a better roof over the head of his family. It was for this objective that the collaboration agreement was devised, but the appellant subjected the respondent to undue harassment on account of his illegal designs which led to the registration of the FIR, and the respondent had to run from pillar to post due to the direct acts of the appellant. Such circumstances do warrant awarding of damages on account of mental agony and harassment.

Case Briefs High Courts

Bombay High Court| Procedure of constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is overshadowed by MSMED Act, but does not eclipse the agreement between parties in case of exclusive jurisdiction

Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Decreeing a claim while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 impermissible: SC

Supreme Court: In a case where the Punjab and Haryana High Court not only set aside the judgment of the District Judge

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Patent and latent ambiguities, as explained by Supreme Court

Supreme Court: While settling the dispute between Anglo American Metallurgical Coal (AAMC) and MMTC Ltd, the bench of RF Nariman* and KM

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Anglo American Metallurgical Coal versus MMTC| Supreme Court finds Delhi HC’s division bench verdict “flawed”; Restores Arbitral Tribunal’s majority award

“The entire approach of the Division Bench is flawed.”

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Supreme Court confirms pre-BALCO foreign awards cannot be challenged under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Supreme Court: The question before the division bench of Ravindra Bhat and Indira Banerjee, JJ. was whether a foreign award rendered in

Case Briefs Supreme Court

SC asks Parliament to consider amending S. 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to consolidate all interim awards together

Supreme Court: Deciding the question as to whether an award delivered by an Arbitrator, which decides the issue of limitation, can be