Back
MUKTA GUPTA, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
H. R. Builders – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. The petitioner-Delhi State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as "DSIIDC") has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1996") read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, read with Section 13 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11th August, 2021, dismissing the objections under Section 34 of the Act 1996, preferred by DSIIDC.
2. The learned Arbitrator vide the impugned award dated 13th April, 2018 had awarded a net sum of Rs.3,04,91623/- along with interest in favour of the respondent-M/s H.R. Builders (hereinafter referred as HRB").
3. The factual matrix in which the dispute has arisen is that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `GNCTD') launched a Project for Refurbishment and Upgradation of 198 schools run by the GNCTD. The implementation of part of the project was entrusted to DSIIDC. DSIIDC invited tenders on 08th July, 2009 for the entire work including electrical and civil work for 25 schools w
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act, 1996, and the importance of a reasonable interpretation of the contra....
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
The Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider claim amounts and reject specific claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
An arbitrator's award may be upheld if it conforms to contract terms, despite challenges regarding procedural compliance or interpretation, provided it does not contravene public policy.
The court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's award on escalation claims, affirming the limited grounds for judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The appellate jurisdiction under section 37 is limited to the grounds prescribed under section 34. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views for that of the arbitrator, provided ....
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
