with an award. The learned Additional Solicitor General
while attacking the award has sought to contend that the
award suffers from patent illegality which ... face of the award, as Courts do not sit in
appeal against the arbitral award. The permissible
grounds for interference with a domestic award
under
award of interest for the period up to the making
of the impugned Award as well as the post Award period, warrants
interference?
(H) Whether ... Vedanta Ltd. (supra), learned senior counsel has
submitted that post-award interest was awarded under Section
legality of the award was apparent on the face of the award. The court might also set aside an award on the ground of corruption ... face of the award which results in jurisdictional error in the award. In such a case the courts can certify interfere with the award made
need not be examined.
31. Post award interference and the extent of the second look by the
courts under Section ... stop adjudication as an alternative to court adjudication,
and therefore, post award interference by the courts is un-
warranted, and an anathema that undermines
legality of the award was
apparent on the face of the award. The court
might also set aside an award on the ground
of corruption ... face of the award
which results in jurisdictional error in
the award. In such a case the courts
can certainly interfere with the award
made
possible view and
there was no patent illegality in the award meriting
interference under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
Consequently, the order ... error, ipso facto, would not render the
award amenable to interference as is
clear from the Proviso to sub-section
(2-A) of Section
procedural errors, violations of
natural justice abuse of jurisdiction, or to
interfere with awards that are in contravention
of the public policy of India. Since ... certain specified
circumstances. Therein, apropos the perversity
of an award, mandating an interference,
43 (2006) 11 SCC 181
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.2706/2024
Page 1 of 133
III. Whether the Interim Award warranted interference by the court under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996? ........................................................................ 113
E. CONCLUSION ... Section 3
of the Limitation Act, 1963?
III) Whether the interim award warranted interference by the
court under Section
scope of interference
under Section 37 is all the more circumscribed keeping in view
the limited scope of interference with an arbitral award under
Section ... arbitral
award when such an award has been upheld, wholly or
substantially, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Frequent
interference with arbitral awards would
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
Equivalent
