Back
NAVIN CHAWLA
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. – Respondent
Navin Chawla, J.
The petitioner by way of this present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") challenges the Arbitral Award dated 27.04.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Award") passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of the respondent.
2. The Impugned Award allows an amount of Rs. 74,25,61,312/- inclusive of pre-award interest and alongwith post award interest in case of failure of payment, in favour of the respondent, while also directing the petitioner to release the Bank Guarantees for Rs. 35,71,45,914/- as also Rs. 17,85,72,957/-furnished by the respondent as Performance Bank Guarantee and Machinery Advance respectively, to the respondent, if not already released by the petitioner in furtherance of the Tribunal's interim Award dated 16.01.2016.
3. The challenge in the petition is made to the claims of the respondent allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal, that is, Claim Nos. 1(i) to (v), 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, as also to the rejection of the counter claims. However, during the course o
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or similar language that typically signify such treatment. Therefore, based solely on the information given, no case is identified as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed]
Case National Highways Authority of India VS ITD Cementation India Limited - 2015 4 Supreme 36: The case interprets the finality of arbitral tribunal decisions unless they are "patently illegal," and emphasizes that the merits of the award are not generally grounds for setting aside unless contrary to law or public policy. This suggests a treatment consistent with respect for arbitral awards and judicial deference, indicating it is likely followed in subsequent jurisprudence as a correct interpretation of arbitration law.
[Distinguished / Clarified]
Case Dwaraka Das VS State Of M. P. - 1999 1 Supreme 429: This case discusses the exercise of power under Section 152 CPC and the nature of ministerial vs. judicial acts. It clarifies the scope of correction of mistakes and the admissibility of damages for breach of contract. There is no indication that this case has been overruled or criticized; it appears to serve as a guiding authority on procedural and contractual issues.
[Uncertain / Ambiguous Treatment]
Case Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225: The case states the principles for setting aside arbitral awards and emphasizes that the merits of the award are not a ground for interference unless against public policy or law. While this is a well-established principle, the list does not specify whether this case has been overruled or criticized in subsequent jurisprudence. Without explicit treatment language, its current standing remains uncertain.]
None explicitly identified, but Case Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225 could benefit from further contextual clarification, as the treatment pattern is not explicitly stated as followed or overruled in the provided data.
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
