Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.27 seconds)Section 34 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
41. What is important to note is that a decision which is
perverse, as understood in paras 31 and 32 of Associate
Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015)
2 SCC (Civ) 204] , while no longer being a ground for
challenge under “public policy of India”, would certainly
amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the
award. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award
which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would
be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent
illegality. Additionally, a finding based on documents taken
behind the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also
qualify as a decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such
decision is not based on evidence led by the parties, and
therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse.