Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Neo Metalicks Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. AP-COM/245/2024 is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act") assailing an arbitral award dated July 22, 2020, as amended on February 22, 2021, passed by a three-member Arbitral Tribunal. EC/143/2021 is an application for enforcement of the said award. The Presiding Arbitrator and one of the other co-Arbitrators passed a separate 'majority' award while the other co-Arbitrator penned his dissenting award subsequently.
2. For the sake of convenience, the application under Section 34 is taken up for adjudication first, since the connected enforcement application will be subject to its outcome.
3. The challenge has been preferred on several grounds, two of which are threshold in nature, hitting at the very root of the arbitral award. The first limb of such grounds is that the majority award is vitiated by fraud and/or corruption and is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b) of the 1996 Act; the second being premised on the alleged violation of Section 31(2) of the 1996 Act, since no reason for the abstinence of the dissenting Arbitrator from putting his signature
The Arbitral Tribunal must provide reasons for its award, and it cannot pass an award on the basis of equity without express authorization from the parties.
Point of Law : On appreciation of evidence is the realm of the Tribunal and that court under Section 34 cannot re-appreciate evidence as is done in civil appeals and that it is only when Tribunal bas....
The Court held that the learned Arbitrator had erred in decreeing the award with respect to the rate of interest, and hence, the Award qua issue no. 20 with regards to the rate of interest is liable ....
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 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 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....
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
