New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that a judge, while interpreting the law, must try to understand the purpose of the legislature and cancel Madras HC’s verdict which has stated that the court’s strength to “put aside” arbitration arbitration under the legal arbitration will also include strength to modify.
“It is clear if someone includes the power to modify awards in Section 34 (Act Arbitration), a person will cross Lakshman Rekha …
in interpreting legal provisions, a judge must place himself in parliament position and then ask whether the parliament is intended for this result.
Parliament is very clear It was intended that there was no power modification of awards in Section 34 of the Arbitration Law, “said Judge RF Judge Nariman and B Ravai.
Bench said it was only for parliament to change the provisions in the light of court experience in working Arbitrage, 1996, and took it in line with other laws throughout the world.
The court issued an order to the appeal submitted by the HC command.
Public lawyer Tushar Mehta said the Arbitrage Law, 1996, was based on the United Nations Commission on the Law of the International Trade Law model on the International Commercial Arbitration, in 1985, specifically limiting the reasons for challenges and drugs consequently, which was only to be set aside or sent.
in a limited state.
This case is related to litigation in land acquisition for national highways 45 and 220.
The bench, however, refuses to appeal on facts.
“Given that in some similar cases, NHAI has enabled people who are equally to accept compensation at a higher level than given, and considering the law stipulated in the trust in the increase in Nagpur, we decrease to train our jurisdiction based on the applicant in the article 136 For the facts of these cases, “Bench said.
Judges must place themselves on parliamentary shoes: SC
