TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 alleged irregularities in the conduct of the reference vitiated the award. (ii) Whether corruption or partiality on the part of the arbitrator was proved so as to invalidate the award.
Issue (i): Whether alleged irregularities in the conduct of the reference vitiated the award.
Analysis: The award could be challenged only on the statutory grounds available for remission or setting aside under the Civil Procedure Code. Mere criticism of the course adopted by the arbitrator, including the absence of detailed notes or the manner in which evidence was gathered, was insufficient unless it was shown that the parties had not been properly heard or that the procedure was so defective as to amount to misconduct. The evidence did not establish any such defect.
Conclusion: The alleged procedural irregularities were not proved and did not vitiate the award.
Issue (ii): Whether corruption or partiality on the part of the arbitrator was proved so as to invalidate the award.
Analysis: The challenge was based largely on cross-examination of the arbitrator and on criticism of his valuations and allocations. However, questions of valuation and distribution within the arbitrator's jurisdiction could not be re-examined by the court unless corruption or misconduct was affirmatively established. The impugned allocations were explained on rational grounds, and the evidence fell short of proving dishonest motive, bias, or partiality. The complaint that the award operated to the detriment of one party was not enough to infer misconduct from aggregate suspicion.
Conclusion: Corruption and partiality were not established, and the award could not be set aside on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The award stood and the appeal failed, with costs awarded against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award cannot be set aside on allegations of misconduct, corruption, or partiality unless those grounds are affirmatively proved; the court will not reappraise matters within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, such as valuation or allocation, in the absence of such proof.
TaxTMI 
