Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Era Constructions (India) Limited vs Mr. D.K. Sharma, Prop. Keshav, Security ... on 25 September, 2007
12. As far as breach of Sections 75 and 81 of Act, 1996 is concerned, I am
of the view that the Arbitrator did not act as a mediator/conciliator in
accordance with Part III of Act, 1996 which specifically provides a
procedure for initiation of conciliation proceedings. In fact, I find that in the
present case, the Arbitrator had only recorded an offer and counter-offer
which had been made before him during the arbitration proceedings.
Moreover, on this issue I am fortified by a judgment of this Court rendered
in the case of ERA Constructions (India) Limited Vs. D.K. Sharma, Prop.,
Keshav Security Services (Regd.) reported in 2008(1) Arb. L.R. 205 (Delhi)
wherein this Court has held as under:-
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Delhi Development Authority vs M/S. R.S. Sharma & Co., New Delhi on 26 August, 2008
In a nutshell, in Section 34 proceedings an impugned award is
liable to be set aside only if it is contrary to Statute or contractual provision
or the same is opposed to public policy (Refer to Delhi Development
Authority Vs. R.S. Sharma and Company, New Delhi reported in (2008) 13
SCC 80).
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1