<?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>2021 (11) TMI 1234 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469271</link>
    <description>An arbitral award may be set aside where a party is denied a real and reasonable opportunity to present its case, because such procedural unfairness violates the equality and full-opportunity mandate of Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On the facts described, insufficient time for evidence and cross-examination, along with rejection of the request to waive costs, prevented the respondent from completing its case and amounted to denial of natural justice. That defect attracted interference under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) and Section 34(2)(b)(ii), and the disputes were directed to be heard afresh by a newly appointed arbitrator, with interest left open in the fresh proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 1234 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469271</link>
      <description>An arbitral award may be set aside where a party is denied a real and reasonable opportunity to present its case, because such procedural unfairness violates the equality and full-opportunity mandate of Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On the facts described, insufficient time for evidence and cross-examination, along with rejection of the request to waive costs, prevented the respondent from completing its case and amounted to denial of natural justice. That defect attracted interference under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) and Section 34(2)(b)(ii), and the disputes were directed to be heard afresh by a newly appointed arbitrator, with interest left open in the fresh proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>