Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
7. This Court is receiving many judgments of the courts below which
are most unfortunately dismissing the objections by simply stating that the
Award is not against the public policy or the Award does not violate the
ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 and the other
connected judgments. In my opinion, this is an unacceptable practice.
Since this Court has received a series of cases where objections under
Section 34 of the Act are being decided without even mentioning what the
disputes between the parties are, how the Award has decided the same and
how a court hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act cannot interfere
because the Award, as per the reasoning, is neither illegal or perverse
including not falling under the ingredients of Section 34 of the Act,
therefore, while setting aside the impugned judgment on the ground of
complete absence of reasoning as also discussion as regards what were the
issues involved and how they are decided, a copy of this Court‟s judgment
along with the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2015 be put up before
Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, so that appropriate directions can be
issued, if Hon‟ble the Acting Chief Justice so deems fit, to the District
Courts that non-speaking judgments cannot be passed while dealing with the
objections which are filed under Section 34 of the Act.
Delhi Development Authority vs M/S. Amita Nand Aggarwal Associates on 8 May, 2009
6. Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case titled as DDA vs Anand
Associates 151 (2008) DLT 18 had held that court does not it sit in
appeal over an Award passed by Arbitrator. I cannot reappraise
evidence which had been led before Arbitrator. Court has very limited
jurisdiction.
Section 144 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
1