Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.28 seconds)
National Highway Authority Of India vs Sher Singh And Another on 17 July, 2025 cites

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs State Of Goa on 10 May, 2023

under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Therefore, Division Bench of the High Court was not at all justified in setting aside the arbitral award exercising extremely limited jurisdiction under Section 37 of the 1996 Act by merely using expressions like 'opposed to the public policy of India', 'patent illegality' and 'shocking the conscience of the court'. As reiterated by this Court in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), it is necessary to remind the courts that a great deal of restraint is required to be shown while examining the validity of an arbitral award when such an award has been upheld, wholly or substantially, under Section 34 of the 1996 r Act. Frequent interference with arbitral awards would defeat the very purpose of the 1996 Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 15 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

Associate Builders (supra)]. The other ground would be denial of natural justice. In appeal, Section 37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the appellate court to review the findings in an award, if it has been upheld, or substantially upheld under Section 34. It is important to notice that the old Act contained a provision which enabled the court to modify an award. However, that power has been consciously omitted by Parliament, while enacting the Act of 1996. This means that the Parliamentary intent was to exclude power to modify an award, in any manner, to the court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next