AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 160 wordsArindam Sinha, J
Mr. Panigrahi, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, the appeal has been preferred against order of the Court below, under clause (vi) in sub-section (1) of section 39, Arbitration Act, 1940. He draws attention to impugned judgment dated 31st August, 2005 and draws attention to paragraph 7 therein. He submits, the Court below found that condition 70 of arbitration agreement does not provide for recording reasons for the award. He then points out from paragraph-11, the judgment says findings in the award are mere conclusions but not on reasons. He submits, in the 1940 Act there was no requirement of the arbitrator to give reasons, unless there was contract to contrary. The position in law is well settled that Court cannot go beyond such an award.
Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel prays for adjournment.
Adjournment granted is peremptory.
List under same heading on 26th July, 2022.
…………………………