Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench dismissed objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an award in an appeal before it.
Upon analysis the Court found that the impugned judgment did not resemble a judgment as it did not include discussion upon issues and the rationale for the decision the court took. The impugned order had only referred to the law under Section 34 with the observation that the court is satisfied that the objections filed did not come within the scope of Section 34 of the Act.
The Court referred to Harbhajan Kaur Bhatia v. M/s Aadya Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9176, and held that the impugned judgment was not a judgment as can be said in law, setting it aside. The Court remanded the matter before the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi for proper disposal. Appeal allowed. [India Infoline Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Saxena, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11254, decided on 30.10.2017]
