Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Regus South Mumbai Business Centre Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Marie Gold Realtors Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of arbitration award based on contractual obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments centered around breach and arbitration process. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. details of the management agreement and its implications. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. court’s evaluation of damages awarded and contractual interpretation. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 5. final dismissal of the arbitration petition and affirmation of the award. (Para 54 , 55) |
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1) This Petition is filed by the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) challenging the Award dated 18 October 2019 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has held the Petitioner to be in breach of the obligations under the terms of Management Agreement in failing to make endeavour to achieve revenue projections in the Business Plan furnished by it to the Respondent and has held that the Respondent is entitled to damages on that account. The learned Arbitrator has accordingly directed Petitioner to pay to the Respondent sum of Rs
A breach of contract is established not merely by failure to meet performance goals, but by a failure to make earnest efforts to achieve those goals as specified in the agreed terms.
The interpretation of contractual obligations under the Business Associate Agreement supports an Appellant's liability to pay despite secondary payment mechanisms being outlined, reaffirming the need....
The findings of the Arbitrator, that the claimants are not entitled to damages from the respondents; the breach of the MOU on the part of the KMDA, recorded before the Arbitrator, are sustainable and....
The non-breaching party is entitled to damages that place them in a position as if the contract had been performed, with the awarded loss of profits upheld based on reasonable calculations.
Acceptance of delayed performance without complaint waives claims for breach; contemporaneous allegations are required to support contract termination.
The Court emphasized the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act and the need for evidence to support claims for loss of profit.
Court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's decision based on the principle that interference is limited to cases of perversity, with findings deemed a plausible view of the evidence.
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
