Back
VIBHU BAKHRU
Oil India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Techno Canada Inc. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner (hereafter `OIL') has filed the present petition seeking review of the order dated 08.09.2021, whereby the petitioner's application [O.M.P.(OS)(COMM) 12/2021] under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 01.09.2020 (hereafter `the impugned award') was partly allowed.
2. The respondent (hereafter `TCI') had commenced the arbitral proceedings for adjudication of its various claims. The Arbitral Tribunal had allowed most of the claims as raised by TCI. The operative/dispositive part of the impugned award is set out below:
"OPERATIVE/DISPOSITIVE SECTION:
A) Claimant is entitled to receive USD 26,19,700/- as part of Claim No.1.
B) Claimant is entitled to payment of USD 3,73,707/- from Respondent as part of Claim No.2.
C) Claimant is entitled to a payment of USD 21,000/- from Respondent as part of Claim No.3.
D) Claimant is entitled to a payment of USD 173,348/- from Respondent as part of Claim No.3A, after adjusting the amount already paid to Claimant, if any.
E) Claimant is entitled to payment of USD 1,00,000/- from Respondent as part of Claim No.4.
F) Claimant's Claim Nos.5
The limitation period for claims in arbitration commences upon receipt of notice invoking arbitration, not from the breach date, and claims cannot be barred if defenses were not properly raised.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot raise new defenses at a later stage and that interest awarded in excess of the claim made by a party is not valid.
The court upheld that separate contracts cannot justify claims for set-off, affirming that the awarded interest is not contrary to Indian law principles.
The court can set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 if it violates substantive law, contract terms, or public policy, especially when procedural requirements aren't met or if the award is pate....
Claim of damages against JOPL in respect of another contract - There was no requirement for JOPL to lead any evidence. Its claim was founded on an admission on part of SAIL that sums as claimed were ....
The court affirmed that claims for breach of contract are subject to statutory limitation periods, which cannot be extended by claims of continuing breaches.
The court confirmed the validity of the Arbitrator's findings regarding excess work claims and the correct application of interest, highlighting that overlapping interest claims were erroneous.
Limited scope of interference and intervention by a Court in an Arbitral Award.
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
