Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.G.PANDIT, GEETHA K.B.
Government Of Karnataka, R/By Its Chief Secretary – Appellant
Versus
B.V. Reddy & Company, R/By Its Managing Partner, B. Venkata Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GEETHA K. B., J.
1. These appeals are filed by the defendants/appellants challenging the judgment and decree passed in Commercial O.S.No.2/2020 on the file of Principal District Judge, Koppal dated 20.02.2021 and order passed in Civil Review Petition No.1/2021 dated 08.07.2021 and also dismissal of Counter-Claim filed by defendants respectively.
2. As both appeals arise out of the same case, both appeals are clubbed together, arguments heard and common judgment is being delivered.
3. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
4. Plaintiff has filed the suit before Trial Court praying for damages on several claims i.e., claim Nos.(A) to (M) totally amounting to Rs.7,00,05,930/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till date of payment; for Court costs and for such other reliefs.
5. The case of plaintiff in nutshell is that plaintiff is a Partnership Firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, represented by its Managing Partner, Mr.B.Venkata Reddy. The plaintiff was Class-I Contractor registered with Government of Karnataka. Defendant No.4 has called for
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear claims under construction contracts barred from arbitration, provided they arise within the limitation period set by specific contract conditions.
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
The court affirmed that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited, allowing intervention only for evident legal errors, not for reevaluation of evidence or correctness.
An arbitrator's award can be set aside if it is based on a fundamental breach of contract that ignores material clauses of the agreement, leading to a finding that is perverse and constitutes a paten....
The court upheld the Arbitrator's findings that the rescission of the contract was unjust and delays were primarily attributable to the petitioner, affirming the award under Section 34 of the Arbitra....
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
