Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)
I Pay Clearing Services Private Limited vs Icici Bank Limited on 3 January, 2022 cites

M/S Dyna Technologies Pvt.Ltd. vs M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd. on 18 December, 2019

In the judgment in the case of Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd.2, it was a case where there was no inquiry under Section 34(4) of the Act and in the said case, this Court has held that the legislative 16 [email protected].(C)No.24278 of 2019 intention behind Section 34(4) of the Act, is to make the award enforceable, after giving an opportunity to the Tribunal to undo the curable defects. It was not a case of patent illegality in the award, but deficiency in the award due to lack of reasoning for a finding which was already recorded in the award. In the very same case, it is also clearly held that when there is a complete perversity in the reasoning, then the same is a ground to challenge the award under Section 34(1) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 268 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Smt. Kinnari Mullick And Anr vs Ghanshyam Das Damani And Anr on 7 March, 2014

In the case of Kinnari Mullick and Anr. v. Ghanshyam Das Damani1, relied on by learned senior counsel for the appellant, the question which fell for consideration was whether Section 34(4) of the Act empowers the Court to relegate the parties before the Arbitral Tribunal after setting aside the arbitral award, in absence of any application by the parties. In fact, in the said judgment, it is held that the quintessence for exercising power under Section 34(4) of the Act is to enable the Tribunal to take such measures which can eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award, by curing the defects in the award.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 81 - S Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next