Is it sufficient for a court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to uphold an award on remand merely because adequate opportunity was granted to the parties?

No; the real issue is not whether opportunity was granted but whether the Arbitrator complied with the purpose of the earlier remand by independently considering the objections raised by the parties and assigning reasons for the conclusions ultimately reached.

National Highways Act, 1956 — s.3G(5) — s.3G(7) — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — s.37 — Land acquisition compensation — Reasoned award on remand — Patent illegality — National Highways Act, 1956 — s.3G(7) — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — Reasoned award mandatory after remand — Held: Where an earlier arbitral award is set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, the Arbitrator must independently examine the objections of the parties and assign reasons for accepting or rejecting them, not merely reiterate the earlier conclusion. (¶25, 26) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — s.37 — Absence of reasons — Patent illegality — Held further: An award that reproduces the pleadings and submissions of the parties but discloses no discussion of why a comparable sale instance was accepted or the Competent Authority's valuation rejected suffers from patent illegality and is unsustainable, even though the scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 is ordinarily limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. (¶31, 33) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — Court's role on challenge — sufficiency of opportunity distinguished from compliance with remand purpose — Held further: Affirming an award solely on the ground that adequate opportunity was granted to the parties after remand is not sufficient; the real question is whether the Arbitrator complied with the purpose of the remand by independently considering the objections and assigning reasons. Appeals allowed, the arbitral award and the order under appeal set aside, and the matter remanded to the Arbitrator to pass a reasoned award on market value and statutory benefits. (¶30, 35)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of C.M.P.Nos.6917, 6986, 7009, 7039, 9395, 9723, 9759, 11626, 12068 & v. B.Rajyalakshmi 1st Respondent in — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India