Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, Om Narayan Rai
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Sambhu Nath Ghosh & Co. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual details of the construction contract. (Para 2) |
| 2. arbitrator's findings and reasoning. (Para 4 , 10 , 28 , 49) |
| 3. grounds for challenging the arbitrator's award. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 24) |
| 4. limited grounds for setting aside arbitrator awards. (Para 37 , 40 , 54 , 55) |
| 5. conclusion to uphold the arbitrator's award. (Para 88 , 89) |
JUDGMENT :
Om Narayan Rai, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereafter “the said Act of 1940”) against a judgment and order dated August 16, 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in AP 654 of 2011 whereby the challenge thrown to an award under Section 30 read with Sections 33 and 41 of the said Act of 1940 has been repelled.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case run in the statement of claim is as follows.
(a) The appellant had issued a notice inviting tender bearing no. 17 of 1983-84 for construction of an eight storied building with foundation of sixteen storied building at Alipore Collectorate Compound at an estimated cost of Rs.1,52,50,537/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven Only).
(b) The work was to be completed within a period
Courts may only set aside arbitration awards under specific grounds; the presence of reasoning by the arbitrator, while not mandatory, must be assessed for adequacy, but cannot be dismissed purely ba....
The court reaffirmed that under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the grounds for setting aside an award are limited, and the sufficiency of reasons provided by the arbitrator is not subject to judicial rev....
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 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 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 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 the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act and the need for evidence to support claims for loss of profit.
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
