KRISHNA RAO
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Ajanta Enterprises – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Krishna Rao, J. - This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the Award passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator dt. 13th July, 2010. The respondent being the successful bidder entered into a Contract No. 205 dt. 14th December, 1995 for supply and delivery of stone Ballast and to loading into wagon of Nimdih Depot of Adra Division. As per contract, the stipulation date of completion was 12 months with effect from 28th November, 1995. The estimated cost of the said work was 53,25,000/- and the value of the contract on the basis of the rate agreed by the respondent was Rs. 56,22,750/-. The respondent had supplied ballast during the 1st quarter but the respondent could not supply 7500 cum of stone ballast within 2nd quarter i.e. in between 28th February, 1996 and 27th May, 1996 and only 6851.89 cum of stone ballast was supplied. The respondent had applied for extension of time for supply of balance 2nd quarter till 27th November, 1996 but the petitioners have not taken any decision and finding no other alternative the respondent had stopped the work from 28th November, 1996 and finally the petitioners have terminated the contract
The court affirmed that the claimant must secure the necessary Airport Entry Permits and upheld the arbitration award, ruling no breach by the respondent; consent regarding the arbitrator's appointme....
The appointment of a sole arbitrator deviated from the statutory requirements and terms of the arbitration agreement, making proceedings invalid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the appropriate stage, and the findings of the arbitrator on the point of jurisdiction, if not ch....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Arbitration Act 1940, specifically regarding the arbitrability of disputes and the influence of specific ....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the Arbitration Act, 1996 does not permit the Court to sit as an Appellate Court to find defects in the award. Additionally, the Arbitrator ha....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.