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 High Court was justified in refusing amendment of the pleadings in the pending proceeding to set aside the arbitral award; and (ii) whether facts that surfaced after the award, but were said to have a bearing on the making of the award and on allegations of fraud, could be brought on record in support of the challenge under Section 34.
Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in refusing amendment of the pleadings in the pending proceeding to set aside the arbitral award.
Analysis: The power to permit amendment in proceedings under Section 34 is not excluded merely because the application cites the wrong procedural provision. Where the amendment is sought in aid of a pending challenge and the interests of justice warrant it, courts are to prefer substance over form. A hyper-technical approach that defeats a fair opportunity to place relevant material on record is inconsistent with the remedial purpose of the proceedings.
Conclusion: The refusal to permit amendment was not justified.
Issue (ii): whether facts that surfaced after the award, but were said to have a bearing on the making of the award and on allegations of fraud, could be brought on record in support of the challenge under Section 34.
Analysis: The expression that an award is in conflict with public policy where its making was induced or affected by fraud is to be read broadly. Fraud is of wide amplitude, and concealed material facts may surface later while still bearing a causative link with the award. If post-award facts demonstrate that relevant information was suppressed and that the suppression had a nexus with the award, those facts are relevant in a setting-aside proceeding and may be brought on record by amendment.
Conclusion: Such facts were relevant and could be brought on record in the pending setting-aside proceeding.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court's order permitting additional pleadings was restored, leaving the merits of the award to be decided in the pending setting-aside proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: In a pending challenge to an arbitral award, amendment of pleadings may be allowed where justice so requires, and post-award facts may be relied upon if they have a causal nexus with alleged fraud or other material grounds showing that the award was induced or affected by such fraud.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
