https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296164 The amended Section 34 regime applied to applications filed on or after 23.10.2015, even if the arbitral proceedings had begun earlier, and public policy review remained confined to the narrower Renusagar standard with patent illegality limited to domestic awards. An award could be set aside where the tribunal relied on undisclosed government guidelines, because reliance on material not put to the parties denied a fair opportunity to meet the case and breached the right to present the case. On scope of submission and public policy, a mere alternative contractual interpretation was insufficient for interference, but the majority award was found to have imposed a unilateral alteration inconsistent with the agreed formula, justifying interference on the public policy ground. en-us Wed, 08 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296164 The amended Section 34 regime applied to applications filed on or after 23.10.2015, even if the arbitral proceedings had begun earlier, and public policy review remained confined to the narrower Renusagar standard with patent illegality limited to domestic awards. An award could be set aside where the tribunal relied on undisclosed government guidelines, because reliance on material not put to the parties denied a fair opportunity to meet the case and breached the right to present the case. On scope of submission and public policy, a mere alternative contractual interpretation was insufficient for interference, but the majority award was found to have imposed a unilateral alteration inconsistent with the agreed formula, justifying interference on the public policy ground. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296164