https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414675 The arbitrator exceeded the limited reference by allowing the appellants to retain jewellery after finding it was the respondent's stridhana property. The reference required the arbitrator first to decide ownership of the 99 diamonds and one emerald ring; only if the jewellery was not stridhana could it be divided among the seven sharers. Once the arbitrator found the jewellery to be stridhana, that finding exhausted the mandate on that issue, and reliance on the earlier partition arrangement or later handing over could not defeat the respondent's claim. The Supreme Court treated this as a jurisdictional error and upheld the High Court's interference with that part of the award. en-us Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Nov 2021 09:07:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414675 The arbitrator exceeded the limited reference by allowing the appellants to retain jewellery after finding it was the respondent's stridhana property. The reference required the arbitrator first to decide ownership of the 99 diamonds and one emerald ring; only if the jewellery was not stridhana could it be divided among the seven sharers. Once the arbitrator found the jewellery to be stridhana, that finding exhausted the mandate on that issue, and reliance on the earlier partition arrangement or later handing over could not defeat the respondent's claim. The Supreme Court treated this as a jurisdictional error and upheld the High Court's interference with that part of the award. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414675