Back
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited – Appellant
Versus
Software Technology Parks of India – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - The scope and grounds of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the Division Bench held the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by intervening beyond Section 34 grounds. (!) (!) - Section 34 is a restrictive, summary remedy; an arbitral award can be set aside only on grounds in Section 34(2) and (2A), including patent illegality for non-international arbitration. (!) (!) (!) - Liquidated damages are valid where delay occurred, with extension of time not automatically negating LD if delay was within contractor’s control; conduct of extensions and notices affecting LD rights. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The contract clauses 26, 27, and 28 govern liquidated damages, extensions of time, and failure to comply with instructions, and must be interpreted conjointly; earlier extension does not automatically nullify LD if time was extended with reservation of rights. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The High Court Division Bench’s reversal of the Single Judge’s Section 34 order and restoration of the award was upheld; the Single Judge’s reasoning was found to be beyond the scope of Section 34. (!) (!) - Time is of the essence or not; Sections 55, 73, 74 of the Indian Contract Act govern compensation; extension of time and LD implications discussed. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment clarifies that Section 34's scope is limited and an award is not subject to re-evaluation on merits; the field for setting aside is narrow. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. No. 157 of 2019.
2. Be it stated that by the judgment and order dated 08.08.2019 (‘impugned judgment’ hereinafter), Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) allowed the appeal of the respondent filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (briefly ‘the 1996 Act’ hereinafter) by setting aside the judgment and order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in O.P. No. 433 of 2010 which was filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the 1996 Act setting aside the arbitral award dated 05.01.2010.
3. Relevant facts may be briefly noted.
4. Software Technology Parks of India i.e. the respondent following a tender process had awarded a contract to M/s Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. i.e. the appellant for construction of office building, incubation centre etc. of the respondent. As per the Letter of Intent dated 09.03.2006 issued by the respondent, the total cost of the project was Rs. 16,48,69,970.00. Th
The court affirmed that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited, and an arbitral award can only be set aside on specific grounds, not on broader ....
The appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
Applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be filed beyond the specified period, emphasizing judicial minimalism in arbitration proceedings.
Point of Law : Even if the period of delay is considered to be of 21 days. Since Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996 bars condonation of delay beyond the period of 30 days after the period of 3 months is ....
Substantial delay in pronouncing an arbitral award undermines justice and can be grounds for setting aside the award under public policy considerations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the absolute and unextendible nature of the time-limit prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge an aw....
A deleted contractual clause cannot be automatically revived upon extension of the contract; explicit agreement is required for revival.
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
