Back
KRISHNA RAO
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
PAM Developments Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of contract and amendments (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. claims submitted to the arbitrator (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. arbitrator's observations on hinderances (Para 12 , 36 , 37) |
| 4. grounds of challenge to the award (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. defense counterarguments from the respondent (Para 28 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. legal standards for arbitration awards (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 7. conclusion and court order (Para 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. The petitioner, State of West Bengal has filed the present application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the award passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator dated 21st August, 2008.
2. The State of West Bengal, through its Superintending Engineer, State Highway Circle No. 1, P.W (Roads) Department issued Notice inviting Tender for the work “Construction of Reinforcement Concrete Viaduct Structures with bored piles foundation and the retaining wall on the eastern side of the proposed road over bridge over the Howrah-Bandel Railway line of the Eastern Railway on replacement of the existing level crossing No. 1/1A at Liluah Howrah under the Howrah Highway Divi
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
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.
Point of Law : None of the objections as raised, fell within the purview of Section 34 of the Act and therefore, the award impugned did not deserve any interference.
The court upheld the Arbitrator's findings that the rescission of the contract was unjust and delays were primarily attributable to the petitioner, affirming the award under Section 34 of the Arbitra....
The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The appellate jurisdiction under section 37 is limited to the grounds prescribed under section 34. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views for that of the arbitrator, provided ....
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
