Section 37 Archives

‘Scope of interference in arbitration award passed u/s 34, 37 of A&C Act is limited unless error appears on face of record’; Telangana HC dismisses appeal

“The expression ‘public policy’ is of wider amplitude and hence, where award passed by arbitral tribunal is against the terms of contract or against law of land for time being in force, such an award is against public policy of India and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court | Non-consideration of a clause in a concession agreement not an error that goes into the root of the award; cannot amount to patent illegality

The concession agreement is neither a statute, nor is it a law which protects the national interests of this nation and a mere failure of the arbitral tribunal to consider an argument on the same would not render the arbitral award in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law.

Case Briefs High Courts

‘Interest cannot be withheld in the absence of express provisions permitting the same’; Delhi High Court partially sets aside arbitral award for being patently illegal

The impugned arbitral award was passed without considering the clauses of the Concessionaire Agreement while adjudicating on the rate of interest to be granted, thus, suffers from infirmity and patent illegality.

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court finds no ground for interference as reappreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of Section 37 Arbitration Act

The scope of a challenge under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 Arbitration Act.

Case Briefs High Courts

Why Delhi High Court upheld the award of damages passed by Single Judge on account of mental agony and harassment in the case of a commercial contract?

All that the respondent wished for was a better roof over the head of his family. It was for this objective that the collaboration agreement was devised, but the appellant subjected the respondent to undue harassment on account of his illegal designs which led to the registration of the FIR, and the respondent had to run from pillar to post due to the direct acts of the appellant. Such circumstances do warrant awarding of damages on account of mental agony and harassment.

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Confessional Statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act inadmissible: Supreme Court

Supreme Court: In a case relating to a drug racket spread across three States namely, U.P., Punjab and Rajasthan, the 3-Judge Bench

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Decreeing a claim while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 impermissible: SC

Supreme Court: In a case where the Punjab and Haryana High Court not only set aside the judgment of the District Judge