<?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>Arbitral award set aside for rewriting contract and applying post-hoc policy; award patently illegal under s.34(2A) and s.34(2)(b)(ii)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94020</link>
    <description>SC allowed the appeals filed by the Appellant, set aside the arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected 26.07.2022) and quashed the judgments/orders of the high court, and dismissed the appeals by the Respondents. The Court held the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by effectively rewriting contract terms and applying a post-hoc policy, rendering the award patently illegal and in conflict with public policy. The award was set aside under s.34(2A) and s.34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the errors constituting a breach of fundamental principles of justice that could not be cured by merits review.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:06 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=863431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Arbitral award set aside for rewriting contract and applying post-hoc policy; award patently illegal under s.34(2A) and s.34(2)(b)(ii)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94020</link>
      <description>SC allowed the appeals filed by the Appellant, set aside the arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected 26.07.2022) and quashed the judgments/orders of the high court, and dismissed the appeals by the Respondents. The Court held the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by effectively rewriting contract terms and applying a post-hoc policy, rendering the award patently illegal and in conflict with public policy. The award was set aside under s.34(2A) and s.34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the errors constituting a breach of fundamental principles of justice that could not be cured by merits review.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:06 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>