https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93808 SC allowed the appeal and, exercising jurisdiction under Art.142, declined to set aside the arbitral award; instead the Court validated the impugned sale deeds to avoid relitigation and third-party prejudice. The Company (Appellant) was penalized by forfeiture of security deposits of Rs.6.82 crores and directed to pay Rs.3.18 crores to the Respondents for completion works, aggregating Rs.10 crores. The Court held that delay in pronouncement alone does not automatically vitiate an award, but an unexplained undue delay that adversely affects tribunal findings can render an award contrary to public policy and patently illegal under s.34(2)(b)(ii)/s.34(2A), permitting interference. Parties anonymized. en-us Mon, 03 Nov 2025 08:13:54 +0530 Mon, 03 Nov 2025 08:13:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93808 SC allowed the appeal and, exercising jurisdiction under Art.142, declined to set aside the arbitral award; instead the Court validated the impugned sale deeds to avoid relitigation and third-party prejudice. The Company (Appellant) was penalized by forfeiture of security deposits of Rs.6.82 crores and directed to pay Rs.3.18 crores to the Respondents for completion works, aggregating Rs.10 crores. The Court held that delay in pronouncement alone does not automatically vitiate an award, but an unexplained undue delay that adversely affects tribunal findings can render an award contrary to public policy and patently illegal under s.34(2)(b)(ii)/s.34(2A), permitting interference. Parties anonymized. Highlights Indian Laws Mon, 03 Nov 2025 08:13:54 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93808