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: (i) Whether the amendment of the objection petition introducing fresh allegations of misconduct was permissible; (ii) Whether the arbitral award could be set aside for misconduct or for an error apparent on the face of the award.
Issue (i): Whether the amendment of the objection petition introducing fresh allegations of misconduct was permissible.
Analysis: The amendment sought to introduce new allegations that the arbitrator had wrongly recorded the presence of a party on certain dates and had returned documents after making the award. These were not mere particulars of the misconduct already pleaded, but new grounds of challenge. The distinction between material facts and particulars was controlling, and a party cannot use amendment to substitute a different cause of complaint after limitation has run. The order allowing amendment was also not a conditional order so as to create estoppel merely because costs had been accepted.
Conclusion: The amendment introducing paragraphs 52 and 53 was not maintainable and was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral award could be set aside for misconduct or for an error apparent on the face of the award.
Analysis: An award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 can be set aside only on the limited grounds recognised by Section 30, and where the award is non-speaking the court cannot infer reasons or search for errors by speculation. The finding of misconduct based on alleged incorrect recording of presence was unsupported by reliable contemporaneous evidence and rested only on untested assertions. Returning documents that were not shown to be part of the evidence did not amount to misconduct. The objections to valuation, omitted movables, adjustments for advances, unequal shares, and the family deity did not disclose any legal error apparent on the face of the award, particularly where the award proceeded on an agreed valuation figure and made a consolidated partition of the family properties.
Conclusion: The award could not be set aside on the grounds relied on by the High Court.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's decision was reversed and the award was restored to be made the rule of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: A non-speaking arbitral award cannot be impeached by drawing inferred reasons or by reappreciating valuation and partition choices, and new grounds of misconduct cannot be introduced by amendment after limitation as though they were mere particulars of an earlier objection.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
