Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the arbitral award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 solely on the ground that the respondent was not granted a further opportunity to lead evidence after failing to appear on the scheduled date.
Analysis: Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 permits setting aside an award only on the limited grounds expressly stated therein. The power of a civil court, including the High Court, is narrowly confined and does not extend to interfering with an arbitrator's discretionary decision to refuse an adjournment. A refusal of adjournment, particularly in a long-pending arbitration, does not by itself amount to misconduct, improper procurement, or invalidity of the award. The arbitrators had closed the evidence after the respondent failed to appear on the fixed date, and their order could not be treated as perverse or outside the statutory grounds for interference.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the award under Section 30 on that ground, and the award ought to be restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial interference with an arbitral award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is confined to the specific statutory grounds and does not extend to reviewing an arbitrator's discretionary refusal of adjournment unless the case falls within those grounds.