Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Patwardhan Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Context and Factual Background:
1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) impugning an Arbitral Award dated November 7, 2012 (“Impugned Award”) and a Judgment dated September 24, 2014 (“Impugned Judgment”) which upheld the Impugned Award, dismissing a challenge under Section 34 of the Act.
2. The disputes and differences between the parties relate to the award of a work on August 31, 1999 and a short four-page agreement dated November 26, 1999, being signed (“Agreement”). The Appellant, the State of Maharashtra (“State”), awarded to the Respondent, Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (“Patwardhan”), a contract for construction of a two-lane bridge connecting Pen and Alibag across the Dharamtar Creek, on a build, operate and transfer basis, pursuant to a Tender inviting bids for the project (“Project”).
3. The Project had been bid for by M/s Ameya Developers “(“Ameya”), which won the bid with a proposed concession period of 13 years, 7 months and 35 days. The State, Ameya and Patwardhan executed a tripartite agreement for implementation of the Project. For all purposes of this judgement,
A contract's explicit provisions govern obligations, and discussions or observations do not equate to legally binding amendments unless formally executed, upholding the fundamental principles of cont....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting contractual provisions in accordance with their plain language and the grounds for challenging an award under Sectio....
The court upheld that materially adverse effects on toll collections justified the arbitral tribunal's conclusion of a material breach leading to terminal payments under the Concession Agreement.
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....
An arbitral award can only be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if the appellant establishes that the award is in conflict with the public policy of India, is p....
Appeal against arbitral award – Scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction – Mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpr....
The court can interfere with an Arbitral Award if it is contrary to public policy, patently illegal, unfair, or unreasonable. The award must not be in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian l....
The interpretation of a contract is within the scope and jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, and the interference is only warranted when the Tribunal has traveled beyond the terms of the contract ....
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
