Back
VIBHU BAKHRU
Sudhir Gopi – Appellant
Versus
Indira Gandhi National Open University – Respondent
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
I.A. No. 1239/2016
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the present petition is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 22/2016
3. Shri Sudhir Gopi, Chairman and Managing Director of Universal Empire Institute of Technology (UEIT) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter “the Act”) for setting aside the arbitral award dated 20.07.2015 (hereafter “the impugned award”) delivered by the sole arbitrator.
4. By the impugned award, a sum of USD 664,070 along with pre award and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded in favour of respondent no.1 (hereafter “IGNOU”) and against Shri Sudhir Gopi (the petitioner) and UEIT (respondent No.2), jointly and severally.
5. The impugned award was rendered in the context of the disputes that had arisen in relation to an agreement dated 16.11.2005 as renewed by an agreement dated 01.05.2009 entered into between IGNOU and UEIT.
6. UEIT had also made an application under Section 34 of the Act challenging the impugned award (O.M.P. (COMM) 25/2016), which was rejected by this Court by an order date
None of the listed cases explicitly mention being overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. There are no clear indicators such as "overruled," "reversed," or "criticized" in the provided descriptions. Therefore, based solely on the provided summaries, no case law can be conclusively categorized as bad law.
Followed / Confirmed Law:
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. VS Dewan Chand Ram Saran - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 323: "Liability of service tax can be shifted to the service provider. If a possible view has been taken, it should not be interfered."
Explanation: This statement reflects a settled position or a view that has been accepted and is likely to be followed in future cases, indicating adherence to established legal principles.
UNION OF INDIA VS PAM DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. - 2014 1 Supreme 764: "Lack of jurisdiction has to be challenged before the arbitrator."
Explanation: This appears to reaffirm a procedural principle regarding jurisdiction and arbitration, suggesting it is a well-established rule.
Union of India VS Ambica Construction - 2016 2 Supreme 434: "Arbitrator is expected to act and make his award in accordance with the general law of the land but subject to an agreement, provided, the agreement is valid and legal."
Explanation: This statement reflects the general legal expectation regarding arbitrator conduct, indicating a settled legal position.
RAM KISHAN VS FREEWAY MARKETING (INDIA) (P) LTD. - 2003 0 Supreme(Del) 1211: "The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to set aside an award if it is in violation of the Public Policy of India, particularly in cases where the corporate veil is used to commit fraud or evade liabilities."
Explanation: This describes a well-established doctrine in arbitration law concerning public policy and the corporate veil, suggesting it is a recognized and followed principle.
Indowind Energy Ltd. VS Wescare (I) Ltd. - 2010 3 Supreme 669: "It is fundamental that a provision for arbitration to constitute an arbitration agreement for the purpose of section 7 should be between the parties to the dispute; and should relate to or be applicable to dispute ... When an application is filed under section 11, Chief Justice or his Designate is required to decide only two issues, that is whether the party making the application has approached the appropriate court and whether there is an arbitration agreement and whether the party who has applied under section 11 of the Act, is a party to such agreement."
Explanation: This reflects procedural and substantive principles that are likely well-established in arbitration law, indicating adherence and confirmation of legal standards.
Twenty 4 Ventures Group Ltd. VS Haryana State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2167: Indra Gandhi National Open University and another 2017(164) DRJ 227
Explanation: The summary discusses a specific fact pattern regarding a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement but does not specify how this case has been treated subsequently or whether it has been overruled or questioned.
Delhi Development Authority VS Skipper Construction Company Private LTD. - 1996 4 Supreme 64: This case discusses the court's authority to ignore the corporate veil and do complete justice, referencing Article 142 of the Constitution.
Explanation: While it states principles that are generally accepted, there is no indication of subsequent treatment or whether this case has been overruled or criticized.
**Summary:**
No cases explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or bad law based on the provided information.
Several cases reaffirm established principles and are likely followed or considered good law.
A few cases' treatment remains uncertain due to lack of information on subsequent judicial treatment or specific references to their authoritative status.
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
