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 arbitral award was liable to be set aside for error of law on the face of the award because the party claiming protection under Section 53A had allegedly repudiated the contract and failed to show readiness and willingness; (ii) whether the award was liable to be interfered with on the ground that material documents had not been considered, amounting to legal misconduct.
Issue (i): whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside for error of law on the face of the award because the party claiming protection under Section 53A had allegedly repudiated the contract and failed to show readiness and willingness
Analysis: The governing principle is that an award can be impeached for error of law on its face only where a legal proposition, appearing in the award itself or in a document incorporated into it, forms the basis of the decision and is erroneous. The arbitrator correctly stated the legal requirements of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, namely that the transferee must have performed or be willing to perform his part of the contract. The challenge was really directed not against the legal statement but against the application of that principle to the facts. The Court held that even if there had been an anticipatory breach by one party, the other party could not claim specific performance while remaining unable to show readiness and willingness to perform the contract. No legal error was shown on the face of the award.
Conclusion: The award was not vitiated by any error of law on its face on this ground.
Issue (ii): whether the award was liable to be interfered with on the ground that material documents had not been considered, amounting to legal misconduct
Analysis: The settled distinction is that omission to consider a material document may, in a proper case, amount to legal misconduct, but the challenge must identify the relevant document and show its materiality to the controversy. Here, no specific document was demonstrated to have been ignored, nor was it established that any such document was essential to the adjudication. The contention therefore did not disclose a sustainable ground for setting aside the award.
Conclusion: The award was not liable to be set aside for legal misconduct on this ground.
Final Conclusion: The objections to the award failed, and the award was upheld with consequential decree in its terms.
Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award is vulnerable for error of law on its face only when the award itself discloses an erroneous legal proposition that forms its basis, and a challenge based on non-consideration of documents must identify a material document whose omission amounts to legal misconduct.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
