The High Court did not have the benefit of the
principles laid down in Saw Pipes : (2003) 5 SCC
705], and had proceeded on the assumption that
award cannot be interfered with even if it was contrary
to the terms of the contract. It went to the extent of
holding that contract terms cannot even be looked into
for examining the correctness of the award. This Court
in Saw Pipes : (2003) 5 SCC 705] has made it clear
that it is open to the court to consider whether the
award is against the specific terms of contract and if
so, interfere with it on the ground that it is patently
illegal and opposed to the public policy of India.
principles laid down in Saw Pipes : (2003) 5 SCC
705], and had proceeded on the assumption that
award cannot be interfered with even if it was contrary
to the terms of the contract. It went to the extent of
holding that contract terms cannot even be looked into
for examining the correctness of the award. This Court
in Saw Pipes : (2003) 5 SCC 705] has made it clear
that it is open to the court to consider whether the
award is against the specific terms of contract and if
so, interfere with it on the ground that it is patently
illegal and opposed to the public policy of India.
Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Vijay Electricals Ltd on 4 February, 2015
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
Citation:2016(5) ALLMR 74
Read full judgment here: click here
A party who is not satisfied with the Award of Arbitrary Tribunal can file petition under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act how ever on specific grounds as enunciated in Section lest Award cannot be set aside. By KALYAN RAO Former District Sessions Judge now lives at Hyderabad.
ReplyDelete