Back
K. SOMASHEKAR, CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Mysore Lamp Works Limited – Appellant
Versus
S. V. Engineers And Contractors – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) MFA No.9429/2018 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award rendered by the IV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in A.S.No.15001/2005 dated 30.07.2018 wherein the suit filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be dismissed and consequently, Award passed by the sole Arbitrator in CMP No.76/2001 dated 14.10.2004 was confirmed.
2. MFA No.9430/2018 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award rendered by the IV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in A.S.No.25001/2011 dated 30.07.2018 wherein the suit filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be dismissed and consequently, Award passed by the sole Arbitrator in CMP No.21/2003 dated 04.12.2010 was confirmed.
3. Heard Sri Saji P.John, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in both these appeals. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with vide order dated 25.10.20
The arbitrator cannot re-adjudicate claims once an award is made, and the court upheld the validity of the arbitration awards as justified and within jurisdiction.
The court affirmed the validity of the arbitrator's award based on the parties' agreements, jurisdiction over disputes, and the authority to award interest, emphasizing that detailed individual findi....
The court confirmed the validity of the Arbitrator's findings regarding excess work claims and the correct application of interest, highlighting that overlapping interest claims were erroneous.
An arbitrator cannot entertain claims beyond what is specified in the court's order of reference, ensuring jurisdictional limits are maintained.
The appointment of a sole arbitrator deviated from the statutory requirements and terms of the arbitration agreement, making proceedings invalid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 arbitral award must provide clear and intelligible reasoning; lack thereof renders it void 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
