New Delhi: Supreme court has said that a judge, while interpreting a law, must try to understand the intention of the legislative bodies and set aside the judgment of the Madras HC, which held that an arbitral award under the arbitration law should be set aside. The powers of the court shall also include the power to. to modify.
“Quite clearly if one is to include the power to modify an award in section 34 (the Arbitration Act), one would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha … in the interpretation of a statutory provision, a judge has to himself should be replaced Parliament And then ask whether Parliament intends this result. Parliament very clearly intended that no power exists to amend an award in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act,” said a bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai.
The bench said it is only for the Parliament to amend the provision in the light of the experience of courts in the working of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and bring it in line with other laws across the world.
The court passed this order on an appeal filed by the Center against the order of the HC. solicitor General Tushar Mehta The Arbitration Act, 1996 said, United Nations Commission on International Trade LawThe Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, specifically restricted the grounds of challenge and consequential remedy, to set aside or remit only in limited circumstances.
The matter pertains to the litigation on land acquisition for National Highways 45 and 220. However, the bench dismissed the appeal on the facts. “Looking at several similar cases, chewing The bench observed that similarly situated persons have been allowed to receive compensation at a rate higher than the compensation, and in view of the law laid down in the Nagpur Improvement Trust, we stand in favor of the appellants on the facts of these cases under Article 136. refuses to exercise its jurisdiction under .
“Quite clearly if one is to include the power to modify an award in section 34 (the Arbitration Act), one would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha … in the interpretation of a statutory provision, a judge has to himself should be replaced Parliament And then ask whether Parliament intends this result. Parliament very clearly intended that no power exists to amend an award in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act,” said a bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai.
The bench said it is only for the Parliament to amend the provision in the light of the experience of courts in the working of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and bring it in line with other laws across the world.
The court passed this order on an appeal filed by the Center against the order of the HC. solicitor General Tushar Mehta The Arbitration Act, 1996 said, United Nations Commission on International Trade LawThe Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, specifically restricted the grounds of challenge and consequential remedy, to set aside or remit only in limited circumstances.
The matter pertains to the litigation on land acquisition for National Highways 45 and 220. However, the bench dismissed the appeal on the facts. “Looking at several similar cases, chewing The bench observed that similarly situated persons have been allowed to receive compensation at a rate higher than the compensation, and in view of the law laid down in the Nagpur Improvement Trust, we stand in favor of the appellants on the facts of these cases under Article 136. refuses to exercise its jurisdiction under .
.