Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan

To bring an award in consonance with Section 31(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, it should contain reasons to support the conclusion arrived at unless otherwise agreed between the parties – M/s Guru Teg Bahadur Rice & General Mill Vs. Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. & another – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that there is no quarrel on the proposition that scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act is limited only to the ground available under Section 34 of the Act. To bring the award in consonance with Section 31(3) of the Act, it should contain reasons to support the conclusion arrived at unless otherwise agreed between the parties. There is nothing on record to show that parties agreed that no reasons are to be given in award. Non-recording of reasons to substantiate that the evidence available on record was adverted to, brings the case within the teeth of Section 34 of the Act and shall be a patent illegality.

To bring an award in consonance with Section 31(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, it should contain reasons to support the conclusion arrived at unless otherwise agreed between the parties – M/s Guru Teg Bahadur Rice & General Mill Vs. Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. & another – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

The time period of 30 days within which the rectification application is filed is mandatory in terms of Section 33 of the Arbitration Act – Project Director, National Highways Authority of India and another Vs. S.D.M.-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Pathankot and others – Punjab and Haryana High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

The time period of 30 days within which the rectification application is filed is mandatory in terms of Section 33 of the Arbitration Act – Project Director, National Highways Authority of India and another Vs. S.D.M.-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Pathankot and others – Punjab and Haryana High Court Read Post »

Power to waive of pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of RERA | Constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 43(5) | Adjudication of Interest, Compensation, Penalty etc. under RERA | Powers and Jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Adjudicating Officer – Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Power to waive of pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of RERA | Constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 43(5) | Adjudication of Interest, Compensation, Penalty etc. under RERA | Powers and Jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Adjudicating Officer – Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

A Single Member of the Regulatory Authority (RERA) as well as Appellate Tribunal (REAT) cannot validly pass orders under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Janta Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

A Single Member of the Regulatory Authority (RERA) as well as Appellate Tribunal (REAT) cannot validly pass orders under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Janta Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

Whether a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for separate possession by way of partition with respect to a property which had been mortgaged and proceedings are pending under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is maintainable in the Civil Court – State Bank of India Vs. Anish Kumar and others – Punjab and Haryana High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Whether a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for separate possession by way of partition with respect to a property which had been mortgaged and proceedings are pending under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is maintainable in the Civil Court – State Bank of India Vs. Anish Kumar and others – Punjab and Haryana High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top