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 ... undefined
conclude on the face of the award that the award shocks the
conscience of the Court, interference is permissible.
29. In the case
interfere with an arbitral award. Basing the award
on some irrelevant or extraneous material may also be
grounds for interference. However, the illegality must ... when it comes to
interference with findings of fact, no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned arbitral award regarding the
transfer
interfere with an arbitral award. Basing the award
on some irrelevant or extraneous material may also be
grounds for interference. However, the illegality must ... when it comes to
interference with findings of fact, no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned arbitral award regarding the
transfer
Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing
on the face of the award:
Provided that an award shall ... justice.
42.4. When an award is unreasonable or perverse.
42.5. When an award is patently illegal, which would
include an award in patent contravention
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
appreciate the evidence. The limited scope of
interference would be so warranted when the award is in
violation of the public policy of India, which ... award would not be permissible. The ground for
interference on the basis that the award is in conflict
with justice or morality
evaluate the findings
given by the Tribunal and refused to interfere with the award.
Paragraph 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment is quoted ... erroneous. It is not open to the court to interfere with the
award merely because in the opinion of the court, another view
is equally
Rail Land Development Authority vs Parsvnath Developers Limited & Anr. on 18 September, 2024
Author
evaluate the findings
given by the Tribunal and refused to interfere with the award.
Paragraph 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment is quoted ... erroneous. It
is not open to the court to interfere with the award merely
because in the opinion of the court, another view is equally
challenge to the Award
insofar as interest for the period before passing the Award.
38. The scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration ... reasoned award.
Therefore, the courts are required to be careful while
distinguishing between inadequacy of reasons in an
award and unintelligible awards
