In an arbitration petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court held that a consent award based on terms filed by parties and already acted upon is not maintainable. The petition was dismissed on these grounds.
Arbitration petition dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
kvm
1/1
22-ARBP600.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 600 OF 2015 Sharad Shah & Anr. ….. Petitioners VERSUS
Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited
….. Respondent
Mr.Rajiv Narula, i/b. Jhangiani, Narula & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr.Dharam Jumani, a/w. Mr.Mustafa Kachwala, i/b. Kachwala Misar & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATED : 5th MAY, 2015
P.C .
By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 14th February, 2014 made by the learned arbitrator.
[R.D. DHANUKA, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an arbitral award based on consent terms that have been acted upon by the parties is maintainable under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sharad Shah & Anr.
Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited
R.D. Dhanuka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
