Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
National Highways – Appellant
Versus
Abhijeet Angul Sambalpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
C . Hari Shankar, J. - This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the 1996 Act'), assails para 6.1.7 of order dated 26th August, 2020 passed by the majority of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which consisted of three members, whereby the learned Arbitral Tribunal has held that it would not entertain or adjudicate any of the counter-claims raised by the petitioner-NHAI vide its application dated 4th February, 2020 except the counter-claim for Rs. 12.2 crores. The impugned para 6.1.7 reads thus:
'6. 1.7 It is seen that the AT had allowed the Respondent to file a Counter Claim for the amount of Rs.12.2 Crores only, as claimed through their application dated 04.02.2020.
However, the Respondent nave filed three Counter-Claims.
The two Counter-Claims besides the Counter-Claim for Rs. 12.2 Crores have been filed without any authority.
The AT reiterates that it wilt adjudicate only one Counter-Claim forRs.12.2 Crores as per liberty allowed to the Responding for filing the particular Counter-C1aim.
The-AT shall not entertain and adjudicate-other Counter Claims.'
2. The impugned majority decision proceeds on the premise that the learned Arbitral Tribunal
The right of the petitioner to file counter-claims exists independent of any liberty granted by the Arbitral Tribunal, and the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal can be challenged under Section 34 of ....
The right to file counter-claims exists independent of any liberty granted by the arbitral tribunal, and the tribunal can reject counter-claims on various grounds. The definition of 'interim award' a....
The right to file counter-claims in arbitration is independent of previous permissions, and decisions rejecting such claims qualify as interim awards subject to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbi....
The right to file a counter-claim exists independent of any liberty granted by the Arbitral Tribunal, and an interim award is susceptible to challenge under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
An order dismissing an application under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration Act is procedural and not an interim award amenable to challenge under Section 34.
The Court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to award foreclosure compensation and reject the counterclaim, finding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the contract was within its jurisdiction....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and weight of evidence under the Act, 1996, and the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act, 1996.
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
