Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-17-2003
Reported in : AIR2003SC2629; 2003(3)ALD82(SC); 2003(2)ARBLR5(SC); (2003)3CompLJ1(SC); [2003(4)JCR148(SC)]; JT2003(4)SC171; 2003(4)SCALE92; (2003)5SCC705; 44SCL89(SC); 3SCR691
..... and any violation of the said provisions would be contrary to the public policy of india as envisaged in section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the act.'18. this court in murlidhar agarwal and anr. v. state of u.p. and ors. : 1scr575 while dealing with the concept of 'public policy' observed ..... with statutes in other countries, though i wish that the indian law had a provision similar to section 68 of the english arbitration act, 1996 which gives power to the court to correct errors of law in the award. i welcome your view on the need for giving the doctrine of 'public policy' ..... in harish chandra bajpai v. trilok singh : 1scr370 , while dealing with sections 90 and 92 of the representation of the people act, 1951 (as it stood), this court observed thus:--'it is then argued that section 92 confers powers on the tribunal in respect of certain matters, while section 90(2) applies ..... is a stipulation in the nature of penalty for forfeiture of an amount deposited pursuant to the terms of contract which expressly provides for forfeiture, the court has jurisdiction to award such sum only as it considers reasonable, but not exceeding the amount specified in the contract as liable to forfeiture.'47. from ..... finality to the award and resolving the dispute by speedier method would be much more frustrated by permitting patently illegal award to operate. patently illegal ward is required to be set at naught, otherwise it would promote injustice.30. therefore, in our view, the phrase 'public policy of india .....Tag this Judgment!