چکیده:
Since 1929, the Iranian legislator has addressed the issue of arbitration or a judge appointed by the litigants, which has a precedent in both Shiite and Sunni jurisprudence and as well as those of other countries Following this legislation, various claims related to the annulment of arbitration awards have occupied the Iranian courts, in which parties to the disputes have contested these awards both in terms of procedure and substance In this review, the judgments rendered by the court of first instance and the appellate court regarding the request to annul the arbitral award have been examined and criticized, and we have discussed the arguments of the two honorable courts regarding the time limit for award, objection to the award, and the limit and scope of the authority of the court to confirm or annul the arbitral award.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Therefore, considering the explicit text in Clause 2-22 of the construction participation contract, they have only agreed upon the creation of the ruling within the specified deadline and have remained silent regarding the notification, and the matter is subject to the general rules of notification which, based on the note to Article 484 of the Civil Procedure Law, is three months.
*********** against judgment number 1753-1400/5/12 of Branch 109 of the Tehran General Civil Court, by which the judgment for the nullity of the appellants' primary lawsuit against the appellees, seeking the annulment of the arbitrator's ruling number 3111, page 1, dated 16/12/1399, was issued; after careful examination of the contents of the first case file, in relation to the appellants' objection regarding the failure to observe legal deadlines in the issuance of the arbitrator's ruling agreed upon by the parties according to Clause 2-22 of the construction participation contract number 110 - 22/01/1398, formed between Mr.
(Dr. Shams, Volume 3, Page 531) 3- According to Clause 3 of Article 22 of the partnership contract, notification must be made via registered mail or courier, whereas the arbitrator has notified the ruling via electronic mail, which, according to Article 477 of the Civil Procedure Law, is deemed as non-notification; because Clause 4 of Article 489 stipulates: "the arbitrator's ruling must be issued and delivered after the expiration of the arbitration period", the parties have agreed on postal or courier notification, so electronic notification is equivalent to non-delivery, a matter to which the court has essentially not objected.
(
, 
, 
)
