Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)

Fiza Developers And Inter-Trade Pvt ... vs Amci (India) Private Limited on 12 September, 2008

17. Before concluding, it is also necessary to remind oneself that Section 34 of A and C Act is a delicate balance between sanctity of finality of arbitral awards ingrained in Section 35 read with minimum judicial intervention principle ingrained in Section 5 of A and C Act on the one side and judicial review which is one of the bedrock facets of Rule of Law on the other. This makes Section 34 a default provision. In this default provision, the scope of judicial intervention is very minimal. Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a Section 34 exercise is by way of a summary procedure. This is vide oft-quoted Fiza Developers case law [Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited Vs. AMCI (India) Private Limited reported in (2009) 17 SCC 796].
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 151 - D V Kumar - Full Document

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

To be noted, reference to Paragraphs in Associate Builders case law is from SCC report as reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49. Once an argument is moved into patent illegality under Section 34(2A), the proviso kicks in i.e., proviso to Section 34(2A). Proviso forbids two legal exercises, i) it forbids re- appreciation of evidence and ii) it forbids setting aside an award merely on the ground of erroneous application of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1