Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Mumbai Metro One Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to majority arbitral award under section 34. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of metro-1 project and concession agreement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. claims, counterclaims, and operative parts of awards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. procedural history and intervention application. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. petitioner's arguments on perversity and patent illegality. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. respondent's defense upholding award's reasoned findings. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 7. overview of disputes and scope of section 34 review. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 8. limited judicial interference under section 34 principles. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 9. mmrda's obligation for encumbrance-free row within 180 days. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 10. mmrda responsible for project delay via row failure. (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93) |
| 11. entitlement to damages beyond concession extension. (Para 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , |
Arbitral awards under Section 34 set aside in part for patent illegality where claims lack evidence of loss; sustained for plausible delay findings, scope changes; severability applies to separable p....
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.
Arbitral awards set aside partly for patent illegality where head office overhead claims lack evidentiary support like unverified CA certificates without witness testimony, despite upholding other pr....
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 upheld the arbitral tribunal's findings on delays caused by the Municipal Corporation but set aside the award for loss of profit due to insufficient evidence.
The court upheld the tribunal's award, concluding that the claims did not fall under 'excepted matters' and corroborated the contractor's entitlement to claims based on inadequate adjudication by the....
The judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is restricted to issues of patent illegality, ensuring that arbitrator's findings are not disturbed unless they fundamenta....
The need for evidence to establish loss of profits and the court's discretion to modify the interest rate as agreed upon by the parties.
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
