Mr. Justice Suresh Kait

Without challenging arbitrator appointment and without participating in arbitral proceedings, despite having knowledge of the same, u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging appointment of Arbitrator as well as Arbitral Award is not tenable – Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Gunocen Inc. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court holds that in the present case, even if it is accepted that the appellants had raised objection to the appointment of Arbitrator by sending a letter to him but the fact remains that the appointment was never challenged under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 nor did the appellants participate in arbitral proceedings, despite having knowledge of the same. Instead of contesting the respondent’s claim before the Arbitrator, the appellants remained mute spectator and only after losing the battle in arbitral proceedings, the appellants preferred appeal under Section 34 of the Act, challenging the appointment of Arbitrator as well as the Arbitral Award.

Without challenging arbitrator appointment and without participating in arbitral proceedings, despite having knowledge of the same, u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging appointment of Arbitrator as well as Arbitral Award is not tenable – Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Gunocen Inc. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

An Arbitrator cannot award an amount that he may feel is just to a party in the interest of justice, when there is no specific Claim in that regard | A finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality – Five Star Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

The Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that:
(i) The Arbitrator’s conclusions could have been based only on the Claims raised by the parties. An Arbitrator cannot award an amount that he may feel is just to a party in the interest of justice, when there is no specific Claim in that regard.
(ii) A finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.
(iii) Further, in PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. The Board of Trustees of Chidambaran Port Trust Tuticorin and others, (2021) ibclaw.in 204 SC. the Apex Court held that an Award based on no evidence, shall be perverse.
(iv) The Arbitrator, in the present case, had awarded a sum that was for a non-existing Claim, based on no cogent reasoning or evidence.
(v) The Award given by Arbitrator has been rightly set aside under Section 34 of the Act, 1996.

An Arbitrator cannot award an amount that he may feel is just to a party in the interest of justice, when there is no specific Claim in that regard | A finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality – Five Star Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

The law has been crystallised that the requirement of the strict timeline provided in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 has to be abided by filing a complete Petition | The limitation period under Section 34 cannot be stretched by parties through dummy filings which cannot be construed as valid as they are non-est – Union of India Vs. Panacea Biotec Ltd. – Delhi High Court

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

The law has been crystallised that the requirement of the strict timeline provided in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 has to be abided by filing a complete Petition | The limitation period under Section 34 cannot be stretched by parties through dummy filings which cannot be construed as valid as they are non-est – Union of India Vs. Panacea Biotec Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 demand respect to the finality of the arbitral ruling – Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M/s. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that the scope of interference under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 is extremely limited. Sections 34 and 37 demand respect to the finality of the arbitral ruling and the party autonomy in having chosen to get their issues resolved through alternate forum of arbitration which would be thwarted if the courts were to accept the challenge to the arbitral rulings on factual issues in a regular manner as reiterated in the recent decision of National Highway Authority of India vs. M. Hakeem (2021) ibclaw.in 203 SC. It was observed by the Apex Court that Section 34 has a different methodology and it cannot be considered as a typical Appellate Jurisdiction. The Award, being supported by reasons, does not call for any interference. The Court is not permitted to independently evaluate the merits of the Award, but must confine its authority to the parameters permitted under the statute as held in Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. vs. MMTC Ltd. (2020) ibclaw.in 169 SC.

Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 demand respect to the finality of the arbitral ruling – Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M/s. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Section 34 of SARFAESI Act is applicable to only such cases which are governed by and are within the purview of the SARFAESI Act or the RDDBFI Act and Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is not a stand-alone provision, it must be read along with the provisions contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 – Punjab National Bank Vs. Subhash Aggarwal & Ors – Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble High Court held that the words “to be taken” forming a
part of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act cannot have an ethereal meaning
giving infeasible rights to a party de hors the law of the land.
Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is not a stand-alone provision and as
stipulated in Section 36 therein, it must be read along with the
provisions contained in the Limitation Act, 1963. Legal plea of
limitation is fundamental to all proceedings before a Court of law.
This Court at the appellate stage is free to take up any legal issue
which has a material bearing and which is germane to the issue, and
forms the very essence thereof. In any event, the same is instrumental
for the purposes of adjudication of the present dispute as the suit of
the respondents was not arising out of the either SARFAESI Act or the
RDDBFI Act.

Section 34 of SARFAESI Act that the same is applicable to only such
cases which are governed by and thus are within the purview of the
SARFAESI Act or the RDDBFI Act. A perusal of the whole SARFAESI Act
reveals that there is no bar of any kind for a Civil Court to proceed
with such actions which are beyond the domain of the SARFAESI Act of
the RDDBFI Act. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court has not been ousted
and has only been restricted by introduction of the SARFAESI Act.

Section 34 of SARFAESI Act is applicable to only such cases which are governed by and are within the purview of the SARFAESI Act or the RDDBFI Act and Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is not a stand-alone provision, it must be read along with the provisions contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 – Punjab National Bank Vs. Subhash Aggarwal & Ors – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top