Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.02 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
15. Notably, the scope of interference in appellate proceedings under Section 37 of the Act stands bracketed to the grounds which are available under Section 34 for challenging the award. The award is not required to be set aside until and unless it is vitiated by "patent illegality" appearing on the face of the record with a caveat that the award should not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by appreciation of evidence. Nonetheless, it is also not permissible to interfere, particularly, when the interpretation is a plausible one. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid principal of law in the case of MMTC Ltd. v. Vendanata Ltd. reported in (2019) 4 SCC 163, SSANGYONG ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), reported in (2019) 15 SCC 131, UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2022) 4 SCC 116 and S.V. Samudram v. State of Karanataka & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 8067 of 2019 decided on 04.01.2024.
Uhl Power Company Ltd. vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh Multi ... on 7 January, 2022
15. Notably, the scope of interference in appellate proceedings under Section 37 of the Act stands bracketed to the grounds which are available under Section 34 for challenging the award. The award is not required to be set aside until and unless it is vitiated by "patent illegality" appearing on the face of the record with a caveat that the award should not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by appreciation of evidence. Nonetheless, it is also not permissible to interfere, particularly, when the interpretation is a plausible one. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid principal of law in the case of MMTC Ltd. v. Vendanata Ltd. reported in (2019) 4 SCC 163, SSANGYONG ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), reported in (2019) 15 SCC 131, UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2022) 4 SCC 116 and S.V. Samudram v. State of Karanataka & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 8067 of 2019 decided on 04.01.2024.
1