BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED versus SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 08-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 136 : 2024 INSC 478
Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation 
Private Limited 
v. 
Samir Narain Bhojwani
(Civil Appeal No. 7247 of 2024)
08 July 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In the instant case, issue revolves around the power of the 
Appellate Court dealing with the appeal under Section 37(1)(c) 
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to pass an order of 
remand to Section 34 Court.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 and s.37 – An 
award was passed by the Tribunal – Appellant filed a petition 
u/s. 34 of the Arbitration Act before the High Court to challenge 
the award – The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the 
petition u/s. 34 and proceeded to set aside the award on various 
grounds, such as perversity, patent illegality, etc. – Appeal by 
the respondent u/s. 37 of the Arbitration Act challenging the 
judgment of the single Judge of the High Court –The Division 
Bench of the High Court passed an order of remand to the 
single Judge on the ground that the single Judge of the High 
Court did not consider several issues – Correctness:
Held: In the facts of the case in hand, while deciding the petition 
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Single Judge has made 
a very elaborate consideration of the submissions made across the 
Bar, the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal and the issue of 
illegality or perversity of the award – Detailed reasons while dealing 
with the alleged patent illegalities associated with the directions 
issued under the arbitral award have been recorded – Considering 
the nature of the findings recorded by the Single Judge, the job 
of the Appellate Court was to scrutinise the said findings and to 
decide, one way or the other, on merits – In this case, the finding 
of the Appellate Bench that the impugned judgment of the Single 
Judge does not address several issues raised by the parties cannot 
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
137
Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited v. 
Samir Narain Bhojwani
be sustained at all – As far as the power of the Appellate Court 
under Section 37(1)(c) to pass an order of remand is concerned, 
the Appellate Court can exercise the power of remand only when 
exceptional circumstances make an order of remand unavoidable – 
Some of the exceptional cases can be stated by way of illustration: 
a) Summary disposal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration 
Act is made without consideration of merits; b) Without service of 
notice to the respondent in a petition under Section 34, interference 
is made with the award; and c) Decision in proceedings under 
Section 34 is rendered when one or more contesting parties are 
dead, and their legal representatives have not been brought on 
record – In the facts of the case, the remand was completely 
unwarranted – The reason is that the Single Judge has elaborately 
dealt with the merits of the challenge in the Section 34 petition – 
This Court should benefit from reasoned judgment rendered by 
the Court under Section 37 – In the instant case, this Court does 
not have the benefit of a decision of the Appellate Court dealing 
with all the issues dealt with by the Single Judge while deciding 
the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act – Therefore, 
the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court 
is set aside and the Divison Bench of the High Court is directed 
to decide the appeal on merits after considering the arbitral award 
and the decision under section 34. [Paras 17, 18, 20 ]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 34 and s.37 – 
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal u/s. 
37 against the judgment in a petition u/s. 34:
Held: The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal 
under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 
34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction of the Court dealing 
with a petition under Section 34 – It is the duty of the Appellate 
Court to consider whether Section 34 Court has remained confined 
to the grounds of challenge that are available in a petition under 
Section 34 – The ultimate function of the Appellate Court under 
Section 37 is to decide whether the jurisdiction under Section 
34 has been exercised rightly or wrongly – While doing so, the 
Appellate Court can exercise the same power and jurisdiction that 
Section 34 Court possesses with the same constraints. [Para 16]
Arbitration and Concilia

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.