Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Sweka Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. The present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996") has been filed challenging the Common Order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial) Central District, Tis Hazari, dismissing both the petitions under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, preferred by the appellant and the respondent herein against the Arbitral Award dated 30.01.2019.
2. The facts in brief are that, the respondent herein, M/s Sweka Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was awarded Work Order No. EE(E)-Project/SYS/2010-2011/5 dated 16.07.2010 by the appellant herein/Municipal Corporation of Delhi for providing street light arrangement and ancillary work in different roads/streets of the Karol Bagh Zone. In pursuance to the said Work Order, the appellant entered into a contract dated 25.03.2010 with the respondent.
3. During the course of execution of work, certain disputes arose between the parties and accordingly, a Notice for settlement of disputes through arbitration in terms of the Agreement between the parties, was sent by the respondent to
The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Section 34 and 37 of the Act, 1996, and the need for valid permissible grounds for challenging an arbitral award.
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 affirmed that an entity can claim compensation for work performed under a non-finalized contract if the work was conducted at the direction of another party, underscoring the principle of q....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contract terms, breach of contract, and the limited scope of interference with the arbitrator's award based on the violation ....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
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
