Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, OM NARAYAN RAI
Konarak Enterprise – Appellant
Versus
Haldia Development Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and basic facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by konarak against haldia’s claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. court’s analysis on procedural and contextual validity of claims. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 4. key legal standards and definitions regarding arbitral awards. (Para 60 , 62 , 64 , 77) |
| 5. final ruling and dismissal of appeals. (Para 78) |
JUDGMENT :
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.
1. These two appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to “the said Act of 1996”) assail a common order dated January 17, 2025 passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court whereby two applications under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996, being AP-COM No. 229 of 2024 filed by Haldia Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “Haldia”) and AP-COM 255 of 2024 filed by M/s. Konarak Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as “Konarak”) were disposed of. By the order impugned AP-COM No. 229 of 2024 has been allowed in part and AP-COM No. 255 of
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court can only interfere with an arbitral award on limited grounds; the contractor's claim for security deposit was valid, as the limitation period com....
The court held that the tribunal's award of refund and risk and cost compensation was justified, but the risk and cost amount should be modified to reflect the corrected value of work done.
The court reinforced that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope for judicial interference with arbitral awards is limited, particularly regarding factual findings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contract terms, breach of contract, and the limited scope of interference with the arbitrator's award based on the violation ....
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 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 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 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....
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
