Back
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ralhan Construction Company – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Arbitration Act’), the appellant has assailed order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the learned ADJ-07, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Arb. No. 212/2018, whereby its objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to Award dated 09.05.2018 (and subsequent amendments thereto) were dismissed.
2. Though the present appeal was filed by the appellant seeking setting aside of the order dated 16.04.2019, the Award dated 09.05.2018, and the subsequent amendments thereto, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, restricted her challenge during the course of submissions only to respondent’s claim Nos. 2 and 3, which were in relation to release of balance payment of security deposit lying with the Department, directed to be released to the respondent vide the Award.
3. Facts of the case, pithily put, are that the appellant had floated a tender dated 20.11.2007 for the civil and electrical portion of construction of Automobile Workshop-cum-Administrative building at Rohini, Sector-VI, Delhi. The said work was awarded
The court confirmed that the scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited, emphasizing the binding nature of arbitration agreements.
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
The court confirmed that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited to cases of patent illegality or perverse findings, respecting the finality of arbitration.
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the importance of interpreting the contract a....
The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
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
