Preliminary reassessment proceedings generally require statutory remedies unless jurisdiction is wholly absent or mandatory conditions are patently br...
Agricultural land classification requires cumulative factual indicators, while industrial-purpose land and absent agricultural use defeat reinvestment...
SC allowed the appeal and, exercising jurisdiction under Art.142, declined to set aside the arbitral award; instead the Court validated the impugned sale deeds to avoid relitigation and third-party prejudice. The Company (Appellant) was penalized by forfeiture of security deposits of Rs.6.82 crores and directed to pay Rs.3.18 crores to the Respondents for completion works, aggregating Rs.10 crores. The Court held that delay in pronouncement alone does not automatically vitiate an award, but an unexplained undue delay that adversely affects tribunal findings can render an award contrary to public policy and patently illegal under s.34(2)(b)(ii)/s.34(2A), permitting interference. Parties anonymized.
SC allowed the appeal and, exercising jurisdiction under Art.142, declined to set aside the arbitral award; instead the Court validated the impugned sale deeds to avoid relitigation and third-party prejudice. The Company (Appellant) was penalized by forfeiture of security deposits of Rs.6.82 crores and directed to pay Rs.3.18 crores to the Respondents for completion works, aggregating Rs.10 crores. The Court held that delay in pronouncement alone does not automatically vitiate an award, but an unexplained undue delay that adversely affects tribunal findings can render an award contrary to public policy and patently illegal under s.34(2)(b)(ii)/s.34(2A), permitting interference. Parties anonymized.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
