‘Judge hearing S. 34 application must apply mind to grounds of challenge and deduce whether interference is required’: SC

Supreme Court: In a special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the division bench of the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court remand the proceedings to the Single Judge for reconsidering the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, observing that the validity of the award of refund and the grant of interest appears in the context of examining the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Single Judge alone, the Three Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. while agreeing with the reasoning which led the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to remand the proceedings to the Single Judge, said that interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 must be confined to the grounds which are permissible under the statute. But equally, the Judge hearing an application under Section 34 must apply their mind to the grounds of challenge and then deduce as to whether a case for interference within the parameters of Section 34 has been made out.

After perusing the Single Judge order, the Court remarked that “there is no discernible reason which has weighed with the Single Judge. There has been no consideration of the arguments which were urged before the Single Judge”.

After noting the impugned Judgment, the Court viewed that the Division Bench did not err in remitting the proceedings to the Single Judge.

In the facts and circumstances, the Court requested the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to assign the hearing of the petition under Section 34 to a Judge other than the Judge who heard and passed the impugned order.

The Court clarified that since the Division Bench of the High Court has remanded the proceedings to the Single Judge for reconsidering the petition under Section 34 which order has been affirmed by this Court, all the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

CASE DETAILS

Citation:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1876

Appellants :
Kalanithi Maran

Respondents :
Ajay Singh

Advocates who appeared in this case

For Petitioner(s):
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Adv. Ms. Hiral Gupta, Adv. Ms. Bhumika Kapoor, Adv. ,Ms. Sukanya Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Seem, Adv. M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv. Ms. Sonia Nigam, Adv. Mr. Rajat Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Adv. M/s. Karanjawala & Co.

For Respondent(s):
Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Mr. Goutham Shivashankar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma A S, Adv. Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Manan Shishodia, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv

CORAM :