Back
S.MURALIDHAR
National Highways Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
ITD Cementation India Ltd. – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, there is no indication of patent illegality in the arbitral award or the contractual provisions discussed. The court examined various issues related to the interpretation of contract clauses, the applicability of legal provisions, and procedural considerations. It found that the arbitral tribunal's decisions, including the directions for appointment of auditors, the assessment of claims, and the interest awarded, were within the bounds of legal and contractual principles (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court observed that the claims were properly verified, and the procedures followed by the arbitral tribunal did not result in any manifest illegality or procedural unfairness that would amount to patent illegality (!) (!) . The court also noted that the claims were not barred by principles of Order II Rule 2 CPC, and the legal interpretations of the relevant clauses were plausible and consistent with the contractual and legal framework (!) (!) .
Therefore, the court dismissed the challenge to the arbitral award, concluding that there was no patent illegality in the award or the manner in which the tribunal conducted the proceedings (!) (!) .
1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) by the Petitioner, National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’) is to an Award dated 22nd April 2009 as modified on 21st August 2009 passed by the arbitral Tribunal (‘AT’) in the disputes between NHAI and the Respondent, ITD Cementation India Ltd. [earlier known as Skanska Cementation India Ltd. (‘SCIL’)] arising out of the award of the work of widening of four lanes and rehabilitation of existing carriageway of Pune – Satara Road (NH-4) from (Km 725.00 to Km 760.00) Package-1.
Background Facts
2. The contract was executed on 10th May 2001 between NHAI and SCIL Subsequently, on 26th May 2005, the name of the Contractor was changed to that of the Respondent. The letter of acceptance (‘LoA’) was issued on 12th April 2001; however, the work started on 1st July 2001. Although the scheduled date of completion was 31st December 2003, the actual date of completion was 30th March 2004.
3. The claims filed by the Respondent were as under:
“Claim No. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Description Adjustment to Contract Price on account of increased tax in Maharashtra Interest @ 12% per annum, compound
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
