This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – High Courts cannot entertain plea of executing award passed by arbitral tribunal
Bysclaw
Aug 29, 2022By sclaw
Related Post
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 β Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) βDispute over a contractual agreement β The main issue is whether the contract was breached and if so, what remedies are available βThe petitioner argues that the respondent failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract βThe respondent contends that they met all contractual requirements and that any issues were due to the petitioner’s actions βThe court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent breached the contract βThe court based its decision on the evidence presented, which showed that the respondent did not meet the contractual terms βThe court applied principles of contract law, focusing on the obligations and duties outlined in the agreement βThe court awarded damages to the petitioner and ordered the respondent to fulfill their contractual obligations.
Oct 2, 2024
sclaw
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 β Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) βDispute over a contractual agreement β The main issue is whether the contract was breached and if so, what remedies are available βThe petitioner argues that the respondent failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract βThe respondent contends that they met all contractual requirements and that any issues were due to the petitioner’s actions βThe court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent breached the contract βThe court based its decision on the evidence presented, which showed that the respondent did not meet the contractual terms βThe court applied principles of contract law, focusing on the obligations and duties outlined in the agreement βThe court awarded damages to the petitioner and ordered the respondent to fulfill their contractual obligations.
Oct 2, 2024
sclaw
Arbitration Act, 1996 β Sections 34 and 37 β Appellant supplied paddy β Respondent returned less rice β Dispute over shortfall β Appellate Court set aside arbitral award β Appellant argued award based on evidence β Respondent contended award was erroneous β Supreme Court restored award, emphasizing limited interference under Sections 34 & 37 β Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction β Arbitral awards should not be interfered with unless violating public policy or fundamental principles β Appeal allowed, arbitral award restored β Respect for finality of arbitral awards.
Oct 2, 2024
sclaw