Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on 9 September, 2021
In Delhi Airport
Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.: 2021
SCC OnLine SC 695, the Supreme Court had faulted this approach of
the courts to re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:Dushyant Rawal O.M.P. (COMM) 54/2020 and O.M.P. (COMM) 502/2019 Page 22 of 27
Signing Date:16.03.2022
determining whether the arbitral award was vitiated by patent
illegality. The Supreme Court had further explained as under:
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 2013
N. Sanjeeva And Anr. vs State Bank Of Travancore on 30 December, 2005
38. He submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had neither considered
the question of novation of the Distribution Agreement nor the issue
regarding estoppel. He submitted that these were noted by the Arbitral
Tribunal in paragraph 88 of the impugned award but were not
effectively adjudicated. He submitted that the impugned award was
thus, non-speaking and unreasoned and therefore, was liable to be set
aside. He also relied on the decision of the Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Chennai in N. Sanjeeva and Anr. v. State Bank of Travancore:
A.R.R.M. Somasundaram Chettiar vs P.P.A.R.R.M. Peria Karuppan Chettiar ... on 1 September, 1939
(2006) 130 Comp Cas 659, and the decision of the High Court of
Rangoon in A. C. Chettier v. A.S.P.S.K.R. Karuppan Chettyar and
Anr.: AIR 1941 Rangoon 129, in support of his contentions.
1