Back
ARAVIND KUMAR, N. V. ANJARIA
Ramesh Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. examination of arbitration award and legal basis. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. high court's reasoning for setting aside the arbitral award. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. appellant's argument on the high court's overreach. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. respondent's counterarguments against the arbitral award. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. parameters for judicial intervention in arbitral awards. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 6. restoration of arbitral award based on lawful principles. (Para 39 , 41 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Leave Granted.
3. The facts shorn of unnecessary details are set forth herein under:
3.2. The sole arbitrator after considering the pleadings filed by the appellant and respondent formulated 13 (Thirteen) issues. The learned sole arbitrator after hearing both the parties at length passed the arbitral award dated 15.07.2012 in favour of the appellant as follows:
Para 19.1 Claim for extra work of 1,95,000 MT allowed @Rs. 10 per metric ton Rs.31,85,000/- (including interest @10% p.a. from 31.03.2001 till Aug 2007
Para 19.3 Claim for removal of extra overburden Nil
Para 19.5 Claim on interest on account of delay in respect of 15th R.A. Bill Rs.8,30,157/- (Interest has been awarded @18% p.a. f
Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited, focusing on patent illegality and public policy; courts should respect arbitrators' decisions unless they lack evidence or contravene explicit terms of ....
The court affirmed that an entity can claim compensation for work performed under a non-finalized contract if the work was conducted at the direction of another party, underscoring the principle of q....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
The court upheld the validity of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference and the necessity of demonstrating clear error or illegality.
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
Judicial scrutiny under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited; courts must respect arbitral awards unless proven to violate public policy or statutory obligations, affirming the principle t....
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
