Bombay HC: Insolvency Cannot be Used to Evade a Family Court’s Maintenance Order  ||  Kerala HC: Forklifts and Factory Cranes Are Motor Vehicles and Must be Registered under MV Act  ||  Guj HC: Edible Crude Palm Kernel Oil Qualifies for Duty Exemption; End-Use Condition not Applicable  ||  NCLAT Delhi: Advance under Land-Development MoU is not Financial Debt and Cannot Trigger CIRP  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Cannot Change Capital Structure of a Legally Compliant Successful Auction Purchaser  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigation and Long Delay in Filing Chargesheet Can Justify Quashing Case  ||  SC: Landowners Accepting Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Claim Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  Supreme Court: Indian Courts Cannot Appoint Arbitrators for Arbitrations Seated Outside India  ||  Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report    

Madras HC: Section 34 Proceedings Are Summary in Nature; Does Not Permit Additional Evidence - (29 Apr 2022)

ARBITRATION

Madras High Court has ruled that the challenge proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are summary in nature, hence, no additional document shall be allowed to be brought in at that stage unless absolutely warranted.

Tags : MADRAS HIGH COURT   SECTION 34   ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT   1996   ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved