Back
VIBHU BAKHRU
Shivalaya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner (hereinafter SCCPL) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the A&C Act) impugning an arbitral award (hereinafter the impugned award) dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by Justice (Retired) Shiv Narayan Dhingra, a former Judge of this Court, as the Sole Arbitrator (hereinafter the Arbitral Tribunal).
2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to an agreement dated 05.05.2014 (hereafter the Agreement).
Factual Matrix
3. Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter DDA) had issued a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) for taking up the work of "Construction of peripheral SW drains and culverts in Section G-7 and G-B at Narela Sub City" (hereinafter the Project). SCCPL had participated in the bidding process pursuant to the aforesaid notice, and on 03.04.2014, DDA accepted SCCPLs bid for an amount of Rs. 33,71,38,882/-. Thereafter, on 02.05.2014, DDA issued a Letter of Acceptance (hereinafter the LOA)
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of claims by the Arbitral Tribunal was justified due to the petitioner's failure to substantiate the claims with sufficient evid....
The contractor bears the burden to substantiate claims for bonuses and reimbursement of costs, with courts limited to reviewing arbitral findings unless there is clear evidence of patent illegality.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of contractual provisions in arbitration disputes.
The arbitral tribunal's decision to deny claims for damages due to lack of supporting evidence is valid under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing minimal judicial interfer....
The specified authority's decision on quantification of compensation for delay is final, but the responsibility for the delay is subject to arbitration. The court also emphasized the importance of ev....
Arbitral awards under Section 34 set aside in part for patent illegality where claims lack evidence of loss; sustained for plausible delay findings, scope changes; severability applies to separable p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited grounds for challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 of the A&C Act, emphasizing the principles of public policy and fundamental In....
The Arbitral Tribunal has considerable discretion in evaluating evidence and interpreting contract clauses, and its decision cannot be interfered with unless found to be patently illegal or in confli....
The Arbitral Tribunal's decision falls within its jurisdiction and does not amount to patent illegality, as it was based on a plausible interpretation of the exclusionary clause in the contracts and ....
Arbitral tribunals have discretion over fact-finding, and courts should not re-evaluate evidence unless decisions violate public policy or involve patent illegality.
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
