https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108925 A Delhi HC held that an arbitral award was not liable to be set aside under section 34 merely because the parties had agreed to a settlement-oriented procedure involving three mutually acceptable persons. The court treated the procedure as one consciously adopted within the broad settlement framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and found no impermissible delegation of the arbitrator's function. Section 73 was held inapplicable because the matter was not statutory conciliation in the strict sense, and the absence of signatures on the verdict was treated as an irregularity that did not affect validity. The challenge was rejected and the award was upheld. en-us Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:03:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108925 A Delhi HC held that an arbitral award was not liable to be set aside under section 34 merely because the parties had agreed to a settlement-oriented procedure involving three mutually acceptable persons. The court treated the procedure as one consciously adopted within the broad settlement framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and found no impermissible delegation of the arbitrator's function. Section 73 was held inapplicable because the matter was not statutory conciliation in the strict sense, and the absence of signatures on the verdict was treated as an irregularity that did not affect validity. The challenge was rejected and the award was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108925