Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: arbitration, section 34 in That Sought Adjudication Of Disputes By ... vs Has Submitted His Written Arguments On on 29 November, 2021Matching Fragments
11. The Second ground is that apart from lack of application of mind, the Tribunal has conducted itself in a prejudicial manner, without appreciating the pleadings and the evidence in entirety.
11.a. This ground is in the nature and tenor of appeal. The position in law is well settled that this court while exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act does not sit as a court of appeal. The nature of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act is summary in nature as held in the decision reported in (2019) - S.C.C. Online - S.C. - 1244 = (2019) 9 - S.C.C. - 462 (Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala). Hence, this ground is not available for the Petitioner under Sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Thus, the challenge flanked by the Petitioner calling for the setting aside of Arbitral Award on this count is thwarted and rejected.
Com.A.S.No.30/2014
17. The Eighth ground is that the Tribunal's conduct is not appreciating the evidence in favour of the Petitioner is improper.
17.a. This ground is in the nature and tenor of appeal. The position in law is well settled that this court while exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act does not sit as a court of appeal. The nature of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act is summary in nature as held in the decision reported in (2019) - S.C.C. Online - S.C. - 1244 = (2019) 9 - S.C.C. - 462 (Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala). Hence, this ground is not available for the Petitioner under Sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Thus, the challenge flanked by the Petitioner calling for the setting aside of Arbitral Award on this count is thwarted and rejected.
20. The Eleventh ground is that the Petitioner humbly submits that the evidence submitted by the Petitioner was grossly underappreciated which led to the entire award being passed in favour of the Respondent.
24Com.A.S.No.30/2014
20.a. I have discussed about this fact also while discussing the other grounds. This ground is in the nature and tenor of appeal. The position in law is well settled that this court while exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act does not sit as a court of appeal. The nature of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act is summary in nature as held in the decision reported in (2019) - S.C.C. Online - S.C. - 1244 = (2019) 9 - S.C.C. - 462 (Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala). Hence, this ground is not available for the Petitioner under Sub-Section (2) and Sub- Section (2-A) of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Thus, the challenge flanked by the Petitioner calling for the setting aside of Arbitral Award on this count is thwarted and rejected.
28.a. This ground is in the nature and tenor of appeal. The position in law is well settled that this court while exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act does not sit as a court of appeal. The nature of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act is summary in nature as held in the decision reported in (2019) - S.C.C. Online - S.C. - 1244 = (2019) 9 - S.C.C. - 462 (Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala). Hence, this ground is not available for the Petitioner under Sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Thus, the Com.A.S.No.30/2014 challenge flanked by the Petitioner calling for the setting aside of Arbitral Award on this count is thwarted and rejected.