<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (8) TMI 1487 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456365</link>
    <description>Where the court is prima facie satisfied, on the basis of the parties&#039; conduct in the arbitral proceedings and surrounding circumstances, that an arbitral award was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, Section 36 permits an unconditional stay pending the Section 34 challenge. The court found serious irregularities in the award debtor&#039;s defence, including absence of witnesses, failure to produce documentary evidence, weak cross-examination, and unexplained non-production of material documents. It also treated the correction order on the award amount as highly suspect rather than a mere typographical correction. These features together supported a prima facie inference of collusion and foul play, so the award and its correction were stayed unconditionally.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:04:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1487 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456365</link>
      <description>Where the court is prima facie satisfied, on the basis of the parties&#039; conduct in the arbitral proceedings and surrounding circumstances, that an arbitral award was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, Section 36 permits an unconditional stay pending the Section 34 challenge. The court found serious irregularities in the award debtor&#039;s defence, including absence of witnesses, failure to produce documentary evidence, weak cross-examination, and unexplained non-production of material documents. It also treated the correction order on the award amount as highly suspect rather than a mere typographical correction. These features together supported a prima facie inference of collusion and foul play, so the award and its correction were stayed unconditionally.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>