Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Supratim Bhattacharya
Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jai Balaji Industries Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of case and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant's arguments opposing the tribunal's findings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. evidence requirement for loss of profits. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. jurisdiction and error of the tribunal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. respondent's position and reaffirmation of tribunal's decisions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. interpretation of contractual obligations. (Para 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. findings on waiver of advance payment requirement. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. compliance of payment methods and practices. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. breach of contract due to stoppage of supply. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. justification for excess amounts spent. (Para 47 , 48) |
| 11. criteria and justification for loss of profits. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 12. analysis of judicial interference parameters. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 13. final ruling of the court. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The present appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”) arise out o
The court affirmed that the lack of explicit contract terms for advance payments and preconditions led to a ruling of breach by the appellant, validating the Arbitral Tribunal's awards for excess pur....
The court affirmed that limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for re-evaluation of arbitration awards unless they are demonstrably perverse, illegal, or devoi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to consider Clause 702 of the IRS conditions led to a patent illegality in the award, justifying its setting aside.
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 interpretation of contractual clauses by an Arbitrator cannot be interfered with unless it is unreasonable or against settled legal principles.
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
The court affirmed that an entity can claim compensation for work performed under a non-finalized contract if the work was conducted at the direction of another party, underscoring the principle of q....
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
