Back
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Larsen and Toubro Limited – Appellant
Versus
Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2015, passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court on the appeals preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Arbitration Act’). The appeals before the Division Bench were preferred against the judgment dated 26th November, 2008 of the learned Single Judge in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act by which the award of the Arbitral Tribunal was set aside. The Division Bench, by the impugned judgment, has disagreed with some of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. To that extent, the appeals preferred by Puri Construction Private Limited and Mohinder Puri have been allowed. The appeal by Larsen and Toubro Limited was dismissed. However, the Division Bench observed that the parties are left to pursue the appropriate course of actions under law.
2. In these appeals, we are concerned with a company, Puri Construction Limited and its sister concerns (collectively referred to as ‘PCL’). We are also concerned with another company, Larsen and Toubro Limited (hereafter referred to as ‘L&T’). PCL was in poss
The court upheld the findings of economic duress and fundamental breach of contract, while emphasizing the need for proper evidence in quantifying damages.
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and highlighted the principle that the court does not sit in appeal over....
The court upheld the arbitral award, finding no unreasonable delay or jurisdictional errors, affirming the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence, as claims were not barred by limitation.
The court emphasized the wide scope of reference of the arbitrator and the appellant's failure to file a defense, highlighting the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration an....
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....
Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of perversity or violation of public policy.
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
