Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.36 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associate Builders vs. Delhi
Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 held that the interference
with an arbitral award is permissible only when the findings of the
arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse or when conscience of
the Court is shocked or when illegality is not trivial but goes to the
root of the matter. It was held that once it is found that the
arbitrator's approach is neither arbitrary nor capricious, no
interference is called for on facts. The arbitrator is ultimately a
master of the quantity and quality of evidence while drawing the
arbitral award. Patent illegality must go to the root of the matter and
cannot be of trivial nature.
Smt. Krishna Mittal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr. on 21 May, 2010
i. Krishna Mittal vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2010) 2 Arb LR
439;
M/S A.V. Cottex Limited vs National Insurance Company And Others on 30 March, 2011
Kotak Securities Ltd vs Chethan Bhandary on 11 July, 2016
vii. M/s Kotak Securities vs. Sh. Chethan Bhandary, 2010 SCC OnLine
Kar 5270;