Back
K. SOMASHEKAR, CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Navayuga Engineering Company – Appellant
Versus
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.SOMASHEKAR, J.
Since the judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed by the LXXXIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in Com.A.S.No.228/2018 is under challenge in both these appeals which have been filed by the respective appellants, these appeals are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Commercial Appeal 136/2022 is filed by the appellant / Navayuga Engineering Company, under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Court of the LXXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court, CCH-84) at Bengaluru in Com.A.S.No.228/2018 and to restore the Arbitral Award dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by allowing the appeal.
3. Commercial Appeal 171/2022 is filed by the appellant / Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for brevity), praying to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.01.2022 passed by the learned
The distinction between finance charges and interest is crucial; finance charges reflect actual costs incurred and are permissible under the contract despite limitations on interest.
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.
The scope of judicial interference under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited; courts cannot review merits unless there is a clear violation of public policy or jurisdiction.
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 the necessity of thorough evidence evaluation in arbitration, allowing for remand due to prior oversights, reaffirming principles against unjust outcomes in legal proceedings.
The arbitral award's findings on limitation are upheld, while claims lacking substantiation and unfounded financing charges are rejected as contrary to contract terms.
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 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 judgment emphasizes the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, highlighting the need for restraint by courts while examini....
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
