Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 13 docs - [View All]
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Siemens Public Communication ... on 25 February, 2005
Sulaikha Clay Mines vs Alpha Clays on 9 August, 2004
Satish Chander Gupta And Sons vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 September, 2002
Liberty Shoes Limited vs Harish Kumar Gupta And Anr. on 10 October, 2006
N.C.T. Of Delhi vs R.K. Construction Company on 13 December, 2002

Loading...
User Queries
[Section 34(2)] [Section 34] [Complete Act]
Central Government Act
Section 34(2)(a) in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that-
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or