1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Highlights
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Interference with a domestic arbitral award under s.37, after affirmance under s.34, was limited to the statutorily prescribed grounds, including 'patent illegality' under s.34(2A), which excludes mere erroneous application of law or reappreciation of evidence. 'Patent illegality' requires perversity such as findings based on no relevant evidence, ignoring vital evidence, considering extraneous matters, or an irrational conclusion that shocks judicial conscience, and must be applied cautiously. Since the award was supported by some evidence and plausible reasoning, and the arbitrator's approach was a possible view, the appellate court impermissibly reassessed evidence and applied an unduly strict standard of proof; the appeal was allowed and the interference set aside - SC
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
