Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Swan Gold Mining Ltd vs Hindustan Copper Ltd on 22 September, 2014
In Swan Gold Mining Ltd., v. Hindustan Copper Ltd reported in
2015(5) SCC 739 the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
In a subsequent judgment in McDermott International Tnc., v. Burn
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
Standard Co.,Ltd., [2006 (11) SCC 181] when the Apex Court explained the
term patent illegality and held that patent illegality must go to the root of the
matter. Public Policy violation should be so unfair and unreasonable as to shock
the conscience of the Court. The supervisory role of the Court under Section 34
is to be kept at a minimum level and interference is envisaged only in case of
fraud or bias, violation of natural justice, etc., If the Arbitrator has gone contrary
to or beyond the express of law of the contract or granted relief in the matter not
in dispute that would come within the purview of Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996.
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 29A in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
M/S.Puruvankara Projects Limited vs Mrs.Ranjani Venkatraman Ganesh on 26 July, 2018
21. Mr. Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant, also challenged the arbitral award on the
ground that the same is in conflict with the public policy of
India. We do not find any substance in the said submission.
This Court, in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Ltd. (supra), observed that the term ‘public policy of India’ is
required to be interpreted in the context of jurisdiction of the
Court where the validity of award is challenged before it
becomes final and executable. The Court held that an
award can be set aside if it is contrary to fundamental policy
of Indian law or the interest of India, or if there is patent
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
illegality. In our view, the said decision will not in any way
come into rescue of the appellant. As noticed above, the
parties have entered into concluded contract, agreeing
terms and conditions of the said contract, which was finally
acted upon. In such a case, the parties to the said contract
cannot back out and challenge the award on the ground
that the same is against the public policy. Even assuming
the ground available to the appellant, the award cannot be
set aside as because it is not contrary to fundamental policy
of Indian law or against the interest of India or on the
ground of patent illegality.
1