Back
KRISHNA RAO
Neo Metaliks Limited – Appellant
Versus
Orrisa Metaliks Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner challenging the Award passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator dated 16th October, 2023 wherein the Statement of Claim of the petitioner was rejected but held that the petitioner will be entitled to adjustment of Rs. 4,49,55,000/-paid to the respondent on 30th April, 2022 being the 10% of the total contract price of the goods from the compensation payable to the respondent and the Counter Claim of the respondent was allowed in part directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,57,95,372/- as compensation after adjustment of the amount of Rs. 4,49,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 25th April, 2022 till the date of realization to the respondent. The Learned Sole Arbitrator also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 52,43,696/- as cost to the respondent with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of Award.
2. As per agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondent dated 22nd February, 2022, the respondent agreed to sell and the petitioner agreed to purchase 10,000 MT of Lam Coke of the specification
The court upheld the arbitral award, confirming that the petitioner breached the contract and consent orders, making them liable for damages.
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 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 limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
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
