Back
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Bentwood Seating System P Limited – Appellant
Versus
Airport Authority Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the judgment and order dated 27.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. (COMM) No.262/2019, titled Airports Authority of India vs. Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd., allowing the said petition filed under Section 34 of the Act by the respondent.
2. The above petition was filed by the respondent herein under Section 34 of the Act challenging the Arbitral Award dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in arbitration case reference No. DIAC/2225/09-18 between the parties. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to allow the said petition and set aside the Arbitral Award on the ground that the learned Arbitral Tribunal has failed to decide one of the principal disputes between the parties in relation to the submission of the respondent that the purchase order dated 13.07.2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Purchase Order') issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant had been procured by the appellant by fraud.
3. The dispute between
The failure to address a fundamental issue in an Arbitral Award, such as the issue of fraud, cannot be cured by taking recourse to Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court held that the contract could not be terminated on the ground of delay as the Airport Authority of India (AAI) had waived the requirement of 'time being the essence'. The court also found th....
The scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is extremely limited and is confined to cases where an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
The encashment of a performance bank guarantee does not require proof of loss, but must comply with the contract's terms; failure to evaluate these terms constitutes patent illegality.
The court upheld the validity of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference and the necessity of demonstrating clear error or illegality.
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
The judgment emphasizes the narrow scope of interference with an arbitral award and the principle of waiver in raising new grounds on appeal.
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
