No patent illegality or perversity where rate not fixed in the agreement was fixed by the arbitrator on common business sense and proposals submitted by the respondent; Award patently illegal where the contract was interpreted based on a circular that was not in evidence (Delhi High Court)

     Updates by Simran Patel

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Aksh Optifibre Limited, OMP (Comm.) 131 of 2017 Mohan Steels Limited v. Steel Authority of India (SAIL), OMP 488 of 2015 High Court of Delhi; single-judge bench, Jyoti Singh J, decided on 04 March 2020   On 04 March 2020, Jyoti Singh J of the

Continue reading
Categories: Application for setting aside award |  Perverse award |  Recourse against arbitral award |  Section 34 (2A) |  Section 36  

Award set aside by Delhi High Court in an appeal, overturning the finding of the arbitral tribunal and a single judge who had dismissed the set-aside application, on the ground that the reasoning of the tribunal was perverse and hence in conflict with the public policy of India (Delhi High Court)

     Updates by Avantika Verma

MMTC Limited v. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal, FAO (OS) 532/2015 Delhi High Court; 2-judge bench, G.S. Sistani and Anup Jairam Bhambhani JJ.; decided on 02 March 2020 A bench of two judges of the Delhi High Court set aside, in this case, a domestic award in an appeal under Section

Continue reading
Categories: Application for setting aside award |  Fundamental policy of Indian law |  Perverse award |  Public Policy of India |  Recourse against arbitral award |  Section 34