Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Mbl Infrastructure Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Rites Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Background
MBL Submissions
RITES Submissions
Issues
The Statute and the Law
Conclusion
Directions
Preface:
1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter called "the Act"] against Judgment dated 14.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP(COMM) No. 98/2022 [hereinafter called "Impugned Judgment"] whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant [hereinafter called "MBL"] under Section 34 of the Act against the Order dated 08.01.2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal [hereinafter called "Impugned Arbitral Order"].
Background:
2. Briefly, the facts in issue are that MBL filed a Statement of Claims against the Respondent No. 1 [hereinafter called "RITES"] on 15.05.2018 in respect of a contract for construction of Police lines and residential quarters for the Delhi Police [hereinafter called "DP"] at Kondli in Delhi [hereinafter called "the Project"].
2.1 An Agreement dated 05.07.2012 was executed between MBL and RITES. The commencement date of the Project was 02.06.2012
Not every procedural order by an Arbitral Tribunal constitutes an interim award; only orders that finally adjudicate substantive disputes qualify for challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and....
The rejection of amendment applications in arbitration proceedings based on delay is not an interim award and cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court emphasized that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to setting aside, not modifying, reaffirming the principle established in prior rulings prohibiting alteration of arbitra....
An order rejecting an amendment to a statement of claim is not an interim award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as it does not determine substantive issues or rights in the arbitration.
An order dismissing an application under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration Act is procedural and not an interim award amenable to challenge under Section 34.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the amendment made to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, and that the de....
The right to file a counter-claim exists independent of any liberty granted by the Arbitral Tribunal, and an interim award is susceptible to challenge under Section 34 of the 1996 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
