Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)M/S Dyna Technologies Pvt.Ltd. vs M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd. on 18 December, 2019
In the decision of Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs. Cromption Greaves
Ltd. (2019) 20 SCC 1, the Supreme Court noted that only when there is
complete perversity in the reasoning then it can be challenged under the
provisions of Section 34 of the Act. The power vested under Section 34(4)
of the Act, 1996 to cure defects can be utilised in cases where the arbitral
award does not provide any reasoning or if the award has some gap in the
reasoning or otherwise and that can be cured so as to avoid the challenge
based on the aforesaid curable defects under Section 34 of the Act.
Nussli Switzerland Ltd. vs Organizing Committee Commonwealth ... on 18 September, 2014
15. Delhi High Court in Nussli Switzerland Ltd. Vs. Organizing
Committee, Commonwealth Games, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4834 observed
that if a party succeeds in the objections to the award, the court at best can
set aside the award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, but it does not
empower the court to modify an award. It would be open to the party
concerned to commence fresh proceedings (including arbitration).
Kinnari Mullick vs Ghanshyam Das Damani on 20 April, 2017
16. The decision of McDermott International (supra) has been referred to
by the Supreme Court in Kinnari Mullick vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani
(2018) 11 SCC 328 and in Dakshin Haryna Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs.
Navigant Technologies (P) Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 657 and it has been held that
there is no power with the court to modify an arbitral award. To recognise
such power to modify, revive or vary the award under Section 34 of the Act
would be to ignore the previous law contained in 1940 Act and also to
ignore that 1996 Act was enacted on UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 which makes it clear that given
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
FAO (OS) (COMM.) 147/2018 Page 9 of 11
Signing Date:06.05.2022
11:47:32
the limited judicial interference on extremely limited grounds not dealing
with the merits of an award, the "limited remedy" under Section 34 is
coterminous with the "limited right" namely either to set aside an award or
to remand the matter under the circumstances mentioned in Section 34 of the
Act, 1996.
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... vs M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 2 March, 2021
16. The decision of McDermott International (supra) has been referred to
by the Supreme Court in Kinnari Mullick vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani
(2018) 11 SCC 328 and in Dakshin Haryna Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs.
Navigant Technologies (P) Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 657 and it has been held that
there is no power with the court to modify an arbitral award. To recognise
such power to modify, revive or vary the award under Section 34 of the Act
would be to ignore the previous law contained in 1940 Act and also to
ignore that 1996 Act was enacted on UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 which makes it clear that given
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
FAO (OS) (COMM.) 147/2018 Page 9 of 11
Signing Date:06.05.2022
11:47:32
the limited judicial interference on extremely limited grounds not dealing
with the merits of an award, the "limited remedy" under Section 34 is
coterminous with the "limited right" namely either to set aside an award or
to remand the matter under the circumstances mentioned in Section 34 of the
Act, 1996.
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
16. The decision of McDermott International (supra) has been referred to
by the Supreme Court in Kinnari Mullick vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani
(2018) 11 SCC 328 and in Dakshin Haryna Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs.
Navigant Technologies (P) Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 657 and it has been held that
there is no power with the court to modify an arbitral award. To recognise
such power to modify, revive or vary the award under Section 34 of the Act
would be to ignore the previous law contained in 1940 Act and also to
ignore that 1996 Act was enacted on UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 which makes it clear that given
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIRMLA TIWARI
FAO (OS) (COMM.) 147/2018 Page 9 of 11
Signing Date:06.05.2022
11:47:32
the limited judicial interference on extremely limited grounds not dealing
with the merits of an award, the "limited remedy" under Section 34 is
coterminous with the "limited right" namely either to set aside an award or
to remand the matter under the circumstances mentioned in Section 34 of the
Act, 1996.
Section 13 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 2013
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Project Director National Highways ... vs M. Hakeem on 20 July, 2021
19. It was concluded in M. Hakeem (supra) by the Apex court that the
position of law stands crystallized today. The findings of facts as well as of
law, of the Arbitrator/ Arbitral Tribunal are ordinarily not amenable to
interference either under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Act. The scope of
interference is only where the finding of the Tribunal is either contrary to the
terms of the contract between the parties, or ex facie, perverse, that
interference by this Court is absolutely necessary. The Arbitrator/ Tribunal
is the final arbiter on facts as well as in law, and even errors, factual or legal,
which stop short of perversity, do not merit interference under Sections 34
or 37 of the Act.
1