Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
43. Both parties have referred to an oft-cited judgment of recent times reported
at (2015) 3 SCC 49 (Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority) for
varying purposes as to the extent of the authority available to a court in
this jurisdiction and the scope of the enquiry and assessment under
Section 34 of the Act. The contractor maintains that if some reasons are
found in support of an award the court will not test an award on its
sufficiency of reasoning to the expectation of the court, just as the court
would not look into the sufficiency of the evidence to justify a conclusion
based thereon. On the other hand, the State says that it is the duty of the
court to discover if an award is patently illegal for it not disclosing any
reasons. The State contends that there are certain excuses proffered by the
arbitrator to allow the several heads of claim and an illusion of reasoning
or aura of justification is created in a sentence or two in respect of each
head of claim allowed. The State also asserts that the court is required to
read the award meaningfully to ascertain whether the few independent
sentences expended by the arbitrator in support of each head of claim
could be regarded as reasons.
Section 89 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The National Highways Act, 1956
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
1