Legal Reference Library

Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation Vs. Anil Garg The Respondent applied for a loan of Rs.1.90 lakhs in 1989 to purchase a Swaraz Mazda truck and executed a hypothecation deed. Repayment schedule commenced from 10.1.1990 culminating on 10.7.1994. Rs.10,000/- only was repaid on 6.3.1991. The vehicle was seized on 6.5.1991 under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 and auction sold on 4.9.1991 for a sum of Rs.1.46 lakhs. A Money Suit was filed before the Senior Sub Judge, Shimla for recovery of the balance of Rs.1,25,270/- along with future interest and costs. The Suit was withdrawn on 12.12.1995 under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the Appellant desired to proceed under the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973. The Suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Recovery Certificate was then issued under the Act on 19.4.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,94,283/- followed by a warrant of arrest. 7. The Respondent thwarted the Certifi...

In Utpal Dasgupta Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sinha, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that ;- From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) An Award, which is (i) Contrary to substantive provisions of law; or (ii) The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; or (iii) Against the terms of the respective contract; or (iv) Patently illegal, or (v) Prejudicial to the rights of the parties, is open to interference by the Court under S.34(2) of the Act. (b) Award could be set aside if it is contrary to: (i) Fundamental policy of Indian Law; or (ii) The interest of India; or (iii) Justice or morality; (iv) The Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court; (v) 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.” There...

Case Reported in 2015 SCC Vol. 3 March 7, 2015 Part 1 None of the grounds contained in S. 34(2)(a) deal with the merits of the decision rendered by an arbitral award, it is only when arbitral award is in conflict with public policy of India as per S. 34(2)(b)(ii), that merits of an arbitral award are to be looked into under certain specified circumstances. Said circumstances include when the award is in conflict with fundamental policy of Indian law, interest of India, justice or morality and patent illegality. When any of the heads/sub-heads of test of “public policy” is applied to an arbitral award, court does not act as court of appeal. Interference is permissible only when findings of arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or when conscience of court is shocked, or when illegality is not trivial but goes to root of the matter, not when merely another view is possible. Furthermore, arbitrator being ultimate master of quantity and quality of evidence while drawing arbitra...

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4610 of 2009] [Civil Appeal No. 4609 of 2009] [Civil Appeal No. 4657 of 2009] V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. The present appeals arise out of the impugned common final judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4468 of 2008 etc. by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, wherein by a majority of 2:1, a Three Judge bench upheld the validity of the impugned policy decision dated 06.03.2007 on the ground that the Union of India is competent to take the policy decision and further it has held that it is either arbitrary, unjust or violative of the fundamental rights of the appellants herein. Since the facts in all these appeals raise the same issue for our consideration, for the sake of brevity, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No.4610 of 2009. The necessary relevant facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder: ...

Supreme Court provides guidance on the term 'public policy' under Section 34 of the Act and clarifies the extent of judicial intervention in a India seated arbitration; Supreme Court discusses the term 'morality' in a challenge under Section 34 of the Act; Supreme Court also draws a distinction between 'error of law' and 'error of fact' and the extent of interference permissible to that effect; Supreme Court further held that when a court is applying the "public policy" test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected unless the arbitrators approach is arbitrary or capricious. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10531 OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.14767 OF 2012) Associate Builders Versus Delhi Development Authority J U D G M E N T R.F.Nariman,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant herein was awarded a cert...