Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.33 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
Thereafter in a
recent decision in the case of Associate Builders
v. Delhi Development Authority,
39
113.25Appeal+
MANU/SC/1076/2014: (2015) 3 SCC 49: (AIR
2015 SC 620) the Supreme Court after taking
note of various previous judgments rendered by
it with regard to scope of interference with the
arbitral award held that none of the grounds
contained in Section 34(2)(a) of the Act deals
with the merits of the decision rendered by an
arbitrator. It is only when the award is in
conflict with the public policy of India as
prescribed in Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act
that the merits of an arbitral award are to be
looked into under certain specified
circumstances. It was further held that the
Court would interfere with an award passed by
an arbitrator if it is in violation of statute,
interest of India, justice or morality, patent
illegality, contravention of the Act or terms of
the contract. It was also held that the Court
hearing an appeal does not act as a Court of
appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot
be corrected. A possible view by the arbitrator
on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the
arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity
and quality of evidence to be relied upon when
he delivers his arbitral award. Thus, an award
based on little evidence or on evidence which
does not measure up in quality to a trained
legal mind would not be held to be invalid on
this score."
Section 3 in The National Highways Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Psa Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs The Board Of Trustees Of V.O. ... on 28 July, 2021
30] The power of the court while entertaining an
application under Section 34/37 of the Act is circumscribed
by the limitation under Section 34/37 of the Arbitration
Act, 1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PSA
Sical Terminals Private Limited Vs. Board of Trustees of V.O.
Chidambaranar Port Trust Tuticorn and Anr.reported in
(2023)15 SCC 781 has held has observed that it is a settled
legal position, that in an application under Section 34, the
court is not expected to act as an appellate court and
reappreciate the evidence. The scope of interference would
37
113.25Appeal+
be limited to grounds provided under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act. The interference would be so warranted
when the award is in violation of "public policy of India",
which has been held to mean "the fundamental policy of
Indian law". A judicial intervention on account of interfering
on the merits of the award would not be permissible.
However, the principles of natural justice as contained in
Section 18 and 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration Act would
continue to be the grounds of challenge of an award. The
ground for interference on the basis that the award is in
conflict with justice or morality is now to be understood as
a conflict with the "most basic notions of morality or
justice". It is only such arbitral awards that shock the
conscience of the court, that can be set aside on the said
ground. An award would be set aside on the ground of
patent illegality appearing on the face of the award and as
such, which goes to the roots of the matter. However, an
illegality with regard to a mere erroneous application of law
would not be a ground for interference. Equally,
reappreciation of evidence would not be permissible on the
38
113.25Appeal+
ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the
award.