Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Alok Aradhe, Sandeep V.Marne
Gammon India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. This is an Appeal filed under the provisions of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging the order dated 16 November 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Arbitration Petition No.327/2006, in which Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal was challenged under Section 34 of the Act. By the impugned order dated 16 November 2006, the learned Single Judge has allowed Arbitration Petition No.327/2006 and has set aside the Arbitral Award, by which three claims of the Appellant towards electricity charges, price variation on account of increase in minimum wages and extra cost of excavation were allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that Konkan Railways Corporation Ltd. (KRCL) a public utility undertaking of the Government of India invited tenders for construction of B.G. Single Line Tunnel (Tunnel No.20 – Karbude Tunnel) in Ratnagiri (North). The Appellant was a successful bidder and was issued Letter of Acceptance dated 25 June 1991. Agreement dated 9 July 1991 was executed for construction of the tunnel walls. The work was completed after grant o
The judiciary's role in arbitration is to ensure courts do not reassess merits but identify manifest errors and whether vital evidence was overlooked by the arbitral tribunal.
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....
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....
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 arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
Court's intervention under Section 34 is valid when arbitral award lacks evidence or deviates from contractual terms, while retention of claims based on clear factual findings is upheld.
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 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 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
