Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Mmtc Ltd. vs M/S.Vedanta Ltd. on 18 February, 2019
“18. At the outset, we may state that
the jurisdiction of the court under
Section 37 of the Act, as clarified by
this Court in MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta
Ltd. [MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd.,
(2019) 4 SCC 163 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ)
293], is akin to the jurisdiction of the
court under Section 34 of the Act.
Section 11 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 89 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Uhl Power Company Ltd. vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh Multi ... on 7 January, 2022
“14. As far as interference with an
order made under Section 34, as per
Section 37, is concerned, it cannot
be disputed that such interference
under Section 37 cannot travel
beyond the restrictions laid down
under Section 34. In other words, the
court cannot undertake an
1 (2019) 4 SCC 163
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16451 of 2023, etc. Page 21 of 35
independent assessment of the
merits of the award, and must only
ascertain that the exercise of power
by the court under Section 34 has
not exceeded the scope of the
provision. Thus, it is evident that in
case an arbitral award has been
confirmed by the court under Section
34 and by the court in an appeal under
Section 37, this Court must be
extremely cautious and slow to disturb
such concurrent findings.”
(emphasis added)
In another decision of this Court in the case of UHL Power
Company Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2, in
paragraph 16, it was held thus: