<?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 (7) TMI 1434 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456374</link>
    <description>Unconditional stay of an arbitral award under the second proviso to section 36(3) is available only on a strict prima facie showing that the arbitration agreement or the making of the award was induced or effected by fraud or corruption. The required threshold is high and demands deliberate concealment or comparable egregious conduct with a causal link to the award; mere objections to evidentiary handling or to the merits of the award are insufficient. On the stated facts, the challenged note-sheet was not concealed, the award-debtor had notice and an opportunity to respond, and there was no allegation of fabrication or corrupt conduct by the arbitrator. The unconditional stay was refused, while conditional stay on security was retained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Jul 2024 16:25:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 1434 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456374</link>
      <description>Unconditional stay of an arbitral award under the second proviso to section 36(3) is available only on a strict prima facie showing that the arbitration agreement or the making of the award was induced or effected by fraud or corruption. The required threshold is high and demands deliberate concealment or comparable egregious conduct with a causal link to the award; mere objections to evidentiary handling or to the merits of the award are insufficient. On the stated facts, the challenged note-sheet was not concealed, the award-debtor had notice and an opportunity to respond, and there was no allegation of fabrication or corrupt conduct by the arbitrator. The unconditional stay was refused, while conditional stay on security was retained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>