TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the courts could set aside a non-speaking arbitral award on the ground that the umpire had travelled beyond the contract and whether interference was permissible in the absence of misconduct or an error apparent on the face of the award.
Analysis: The dispute arose under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The award was non-speaking and disclosed no reasons. The umpire had recorded that part of the claim was admitted and had awarded sums on the basis of the materials before him. In proceedings under section 30, the court's jurisdiction is narrow and interference is confined to cases of misconduct, perversity, or error apparent on the face of the award. Construction of the contract and determination whether the claim fell within the contractual framework were matters within the umpire's jurisdiction. The courts below were not entitled to reappraise the merits or substitute their own view merely because the award was brief or because a different construction of the contract was possible.
Conclusion: The setting aside of the award was unsustainable. The umpire acted within jurisdiction and the non-speaking award could not be interfered with on the grounds recorded by the courts below.
Ratio Decidendi: In a challenge to a non-speaking arbitral award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court cannot reappraise the merits or substitute its own construction of the contract unless misconduct, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the award is shown.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
