{"id":327758,"date":"2024-08-01T11:00:41","date_gmt":"2024-08-01T05:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=327758"},"modified":"2024-08-06T10:27:09","modified_gmt":"2024-08-06T04:57:09","slug":"section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts\u2019: Delhi HC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court: C. HARI SHANKAR, J.<\/span>, dismissed a petition under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act’) filed against the Arbitrator’s Award , wherein, the petitioner was directed to execute a sale deed of the disputed property in favour of the present respondent on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioners should have been raised before the Arbitral Tribunal and that reappreciation of facts of a dispute was not permitted under Section 34 of the Act.<\/p>\n

The present respondents had instituted arbitral proceedings against the petitioners seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell (‘ATS’) pertaining to a land in New Delhi (‘disputed property’). Vide the impugned Award, the Arbitrator allowed the claim of the respondents and directed the petitioners to execute a sale deed in respect of the disputed property in favour of respondent. Aggrieved by the Award, the petitioners approached the Court challenging the same under Section 34 of the Act.<\/p>\n

The petitioners contended that the arbitral proceedings had been conducted ex parte<\/span> as the petitioners were unaware of any proceedings. The petitioners submitted that they became aware of the arbitral proceedings when the respondents filed the execution petition.<\/p>\n

It was further averred by the petitioners that the ATS could not have been executed at all, as the allotment letter whereunder the disputed property was allotted to the original allottee, contained a specific covenant prohibiting further transfer of the property by the original allottee. It was further submitted that the ATS could not create any right in favour of respondent as it preceded the allotment of the disputed property in favour of the original allottee.<\/p>\n

The respondents contended that the cheques by which payment was made to the petitioners in terms of the ATS, as well as the receipts issued by the petitioners acknowledging receipt of the said payments, were all exhibited before the Arbitral Tribunal and had been placed before the Court as well.<\/p>\n

The Court said that the submissions made by the petitioners were unacceptable as a perusal of arbitral records revealed that when the matter was listed on 16-11-2007 before the Arbitrator for the first time, not only was the appearance of petitioner 1 marked but his signature was also present on the page. The authenticity of the signature was not disputed by petitioner 1, hence, the Court said that petitioner 1 was well aware of the proceedings yet chose to remain absent, at his own peril. The Court stated that since petitioners neither filed its statement of defence (‘SoD’) nor lead any evidence, all averments under the statement of claim (‘SoC’) were deemed to have been admitted by petitioners.<\/p>\n

It was argued by the petitioners that the original allotment letter was never a part of the Arbitral proceedings however reference to the letter could be found in the impugned award. The Court said that the petitioners neither placed such allotment letter on record, nor did they plead before the Arbitrator that the allotment letter contained a non-transfer covenant, therefore, the issue could not be raised in proceedings under Section 34.<\/p>\n

The Court said that the record revealed that upon being confronted, petitioner 1 specifically admitted receipt of payments from respondent, in terms of the ATS, in respect of the disputed property, therefore, the petitioners had no right to question the validity of the ATS or the right of the respondents to seek specific performance thereof.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that it was evident from the submissions made by the petitioners that they sought for reappreciation of the entire facts of the dispute. The Court said it is trite law the Court could not reappreciate facts under Section 34 of the Act.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the objections raised by the petitioners ought to have been raised by them before the Arbitrator. The Court said that by no stretch of imagination could submissions advanced by petitioners be warrant consideration, while examining the impugned arbitral award under Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. The Court said that Section 34, has limited scope, and is certainly not intended to be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a second bite at the arbitral cherry.<\/p>\n

In the given circumstances, the Court dismissed the petition while holding it to be devoid of merit.<\/p>\n

[Krishan Kumar v. Shakuntla Agency Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5081<\/a>, decided on: 25-07-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Advocate for the petitioner:<\/span> Rahul Dubey, Advocate<\/p>\n

Advocate respondent:<\/span> Saurabh Mishra, Aashnaa Bhatia, Abhinav Pandey, Advocates<\/p>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Section 34, quite apart from its classically limited scope, is certainly not intended to be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a second bite at the arbitral cherry.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":314886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[40741,2543,68986,71584,71583],"class_list":["post-327758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-justice-c-hari-shankar","tag-reappreciation-of-facts","tag-section-34-of-arbitration-act"],"yoast_head":"\nSection 34 not intended to be used as tool for reappreciation facts dispute: Delhi HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court dismissed petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and stated that reappreciation of facts of a dispute was not permitted under Section 34 of the Act\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts\u2019: Delhi HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court dismissed petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and stated that reappreciation of facts of a dispute was not permitted under Section 34 of the Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-08-01T05:30:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-08-06T04:57:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts\u2019: Delhi HC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/\",\"name\":\"Section 34 not intended to be used as tool for reappreciation facts dispute: Delhi HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-08-01T05:30:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-08-06T04:57:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court dismissed petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and stated that reappreciation of facts of a dispute was not permitted under Section 34 of the Act\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts\u2019: Delhi HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Section 34 not intended to be used as tool for reappreciation facts dispute: Delhi HC | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court dismissed petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and stated that reappreciation of facts of a dispute was not permitted under Section 34 of the Act","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts\u2019: Delhi HC","og_description":"Delhi High Court dismissed petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and stated that reappreciation of facts of a dispute was not permitted under Section 34 of the Act","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-08-01T05:30:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-08-06T04:57:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts\u2019: Delhi HC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/","name":"Section 34 not intended to be used as tool for reappreciation facts dispute: Delhi HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-08-01T05:30:41+00:00","dateModified":"2024-08-06T04:57:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court dismissed petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and stated that reappreciation of facts of a dispute was not permitted under Section 34 of the Act","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/01\/section-34-not-intended-to-be-used-as-tool-reappreciation-facts-dispute-dhc-scc-times\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts\u2019: Delhi HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":284055,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/delhi-high-court-upholds-arbitral-award-as-reappreciation-of-evidence-is-beyond-the-scope-of-section-37-arbitration-act-legalnews-legalresearch-legalawareness\/","url_meta":{"origin":327758,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court finds no ground for interference as reappreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of Section 37 Arbitration Act","author":"Editor","date":"February 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":330009,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":327758,"position":1},"title":"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024","author":"Editor","date":"September 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick recap of the latest rulings on Arbitration Law by the High Courts.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Arbitration Roundup","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/08\/delhi-high-court-amendment-application-being-rejected-as-belated-does-not-constitute-interim-award-susceptible-to-challenge-under-s-34-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":327758,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court: Amendment application being rejected as ‘belated’ does not constitute interim award susceptible to challenge under S 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (\u2018A&C Act') challenging an order passed wherein the arbitrator rejected an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the statement of claim, Prateek Jalan, J. dismissed the petition as non-maintainable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":354658,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/27\/delhi-high-court-rulings-on-arbitration-judgments\/","url_meta":{"origin":327758,"position":3},"title":"Cases Reported in HCC | Arbitration Law Decoded: Leading Delhi HC Judgments Under the Arbitration Act, 1996","author":"Niyati","date":"July 27, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Explore latest Cases reported in SCC\u2019s High Court Cases (HCC) on arbitration covering critical legal issues such as arbitrability, seat v. venue, limitations in filing, validity of arbitral awards under Section 34, appointment of arbitrators, and public policy considerations.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court rulings on Arbitration","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Delhi-High-Court-rulings-on-Arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Delhi-High-Court-rulings-on-Arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Delhi-High-Court-rulings-on-Arbitration.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Delhi-High-Court-rulings-on-Arbitration.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":322060,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/14\/awards-cannot-be-set-aside-on-ground-of-erroneous-application-of-law-or-by-reappreciation-of-evidence-until-it-suffers-from-patent-illegality-allahabad-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":327758,"position":4},"title":"Awards cannot be set aside on ground of erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of evidence until it suffers from patent illegality: Allahabad High Court","author":"Editor","date":"May 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Statehas miserably failed to show any patent illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Mere allegation would not suffice until and unless it stands substantiated from the pleading and the records.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Allahabad High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291009,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/01\/section-34-of-arbitration-act-a-well-reasoned-arbitral-award-cannot-be-interfered-with-delhi-high-court-on-limited-scope-of-interference-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":327758,"position":5},"title":"[Section 34 of Arbitration Act] A well-reasoned arbitral award cannot be interfered with: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"May 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of Contract, and the Contract is the only basis on which the Learned Tribunal should adjudicate, apart from the general provisions of law and jurisprudence.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327758","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=327758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327758\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=327758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=327758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=327758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}