Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Central Railway-Mumbai Division – Appellant
Versus
A-1 Laundry Services (JV) – Respondent
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1) Petitioner-Central Railway has filed the present Petition under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) challenging the Award dated 7 March 2024 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal awarding sum of Rs.4,89,49,985/- in favour of the Respondent alongwith GST. The disputes between parties have arisen during performance of contract by the Respondent for collection of soiled linen from AC coaches, washing in mechanized laundry, supply and loading of washed linen into AC coaches. Out of various claims raised by the Respondent, the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded claims towards loss of linen, delay penalty, penalty over ceiling of 10%, fixed cost compensation and electricity charges totally amounting Rs.4,89,49,985/-.
2) A brief factual background in which the Arbitration Petition arises is stated thus:
Petitioner-Central Railway invited open tender dated 11 January 2010 for setting up and operating dedicated mechanized laundry in railway premises in Mumbai at Wadibundar Depot on Build-Own-Operate- Transfer model (BOOT) for initial period of 15 years including supply and installation of plant, equipment and relat
An Arbitral Tribunal must adhere to explicit contractual terms without imposing external fairness standards, as such actions may result in rewriting the contract, which is impermissible under arbitra....
An arbitral tribunal cannot adjudicate on claims outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, and awards violating explicit contractual terms are subject to being set aside under Section 34 of the....
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.
The court affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards unless stark violations of public policy or procedural....
The court can set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 if it violates substantive law, contract terms, or public policy, especially when procedural requirements aren't met or if the award is pate....
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
