Back
B. V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Parsvnath Film City Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Administration – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
1. Two appeals, namely, Civil Appeal No. 6162 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No. 10490 of 2017, are disposed of by this common judgment.
Civil Appeal No. 6162 of 2016
2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6162 of 2016, M/s Parsvnath Film City Limited (hereinafter “appellant”) has approached this Court against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 5816 of 2015 (O&M) partially allowing the appeal filed by the respondents (i) Chandigarh Administration and (ii) the Secretary, Information Technology, Chandigarh Administration under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”). The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, set aside the award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 10.03.2012 and the order of the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in Arbitration Case No. 530 of 2013 dated 08.04.2015, thereby sustaining the respondent’s action in forfeiting 25% of the bid amount, i.e. Rs. 47.75 crores.
3. The respondents have filed Civil Appeal No. 10490 of 2017 against the same impugned judgment on the ground that it did not allow the other claims raised by them, such as (i) interest on delaye
The court ruled that unreasonable delays by one party in fulfilling contractual obligations can lead to frustration of contract, justifying the other party's claims for relief.
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the appeal against the arbitration award, confirming that there was no patent illegality or grounds for interference under the Arbitration and Concilia....
The Court's power while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is limited, and it cannot undertake an independent assessment on the merits of the Award.
The court confirmed that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited to cases of patent illegality or perverse findings, respecting the finality of arbitration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contract terms, breach of contract, and the limited scope of interference with the arbitrator's award based on the violation ....
The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
