https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185252 Pendency or even grant of leave in a similar matter before the Supreme Court does not, by itself, require a High Court to defer disposal of its own proceedings; the court rejected the request to keep the appeal in abeyance and did not entertain the delay application. On the merits, objections under Section 34 to the arbitral award were not interfered with because the claims were already covered by earlier coordinate Bench decisions on the same legal questions. Applying judicial discipline, the Court held it was bound by those rulings and found no basis to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The challenge to the award therefore failed and the dismissal of the Section 34 objections was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185252 Pendency or even grant of leave in a similar matter before the Supreme Court does not, by itself, require a High Court to defer disposal of its own proceedings; the court rejected the request to keep the appeal in abeyance and did not entertain the delay application. On the merits, objections under Section 34 to the arbitral award were not interfered with because the claims were already covered by earlier coordinate Bench decisions on the same legal questions. Applying judicial discipline, the Court held it was bound by those rulings and found no basis to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The challenge to the award therefore failed and the dismissal of the Section 34 objections was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185252