Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, Om Narayan Rai
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
CAB Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Om Narayan Rai, J.
1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the said Act of 1996’) lays challenge to an order dated April 29, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Purulia, whereby the appellants’ application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 (which was registered as Misc. Case No. 05 of 2006) was disposed of by modifying the arbitral award dated January 31, 2006 that had been impugned in the said application under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996.
FACTS:
2. Briefly summed up, the facts of the case, insofar as they are relevant for the present appeal, are as follows:
a. The appellants had floated a tender for completion of “Remaining works of Dam, Dyke and Spillway in connection with the Extension of Bandhu Irrigation Scheme, in P.S. Arsa, District Purulia”.
b. The respondent participated in the tender process and emerged successful. Thereafter the contract for the aforesaid work was awarded to the respondent.
c. Disputes and differences arose between the parties relating to the execution of the aforesaid work awarded to the respondent by the appellants. In terms of the arbitration clause contained
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.
The court affirmed that arbitral awards challenging under Sections 34 and 37 are limited in scope, requiring clear evidence of illegality or perversion; otherwise, the Arbitrator's decision stands.
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 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 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 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 judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
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
