CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Limited – Appellant
Versus
C. E. C. Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
The instant petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “the Act, 199”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Set aside the impugned Arbitral Award dated 04.08.2020 passed by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal;
Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent herein.”
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this instant petition are that the petitioner is Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Limited, the employer/respondent in the Arbitration and the respondent is M/S C. E. C. Limited, the contractor/claimant in the Arbitration. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a Contract Agreement No. 1/TDC-1/1981-82 for the construction of four circular head race tunnels having a diameter of 8.5m and approximate lengths 1100, 1200, 1450, and 1500 meters leading to bottoms of four underground surge tanks for the underground pow
Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. AIR 1923 PC 66
Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd.
Bungo Steel Furniture (P) Ltd. v. Union at India AIR 1967 SC 378
Firm Madan Lal Roshan Lal Mahajan v. Hukamchand Mills Ltd. Indore AIR 1967 SC 1030
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Friends Coal Carbonisation
Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa
Jivarajbhai v. Chintamanrao Balaji AIR 1965 SC 214
Kali Charan Sharma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Harischandra Reddy
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
MSK Projects Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
Satyanarayana Construction Co. v. Union of India
Smt. Santa Sila Devi v. Dhirendra Nath Sen AIR 1963 SC 1677
Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI
State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora & Co.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Satyapal Wasson AIR 1979 MP 119
Union of India v. Firm J.P. Sharma and Sons AIR 1968 Raj 99
Vedanta Ltd. v. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd.
The Court held that the learned Arbitrator had erred in decreeing the award with respect to the rate of interest, and hence, the Award qua issue no. 20 with regards to the rate of interest is liable ....
The Court held that the impugned award with respect to Claim 7 was not well-reasoned as required by the Act under Section 31(3), and the impugned award with respect to the award in Claim 11 is contra....
The limited scope of intervention by Courts in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need to satisfy specific grounds for setting aside an arbitral....
Limited intervention of the Courts in arbitral proceedings is intended by the legislature. An Arbitral Award may only be set aside if it is patently illegal, against the public policy of India, based....
The scope of interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is fairly limited and narrow. The Courts shall not sit in an appeal while adjudicating ....
An arbitral award can only be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if the appellant establishes that the award is in conflict with the public policy of India, is p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.