Back
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Nhpc Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") raising objections to the Award dated 7th October 2019, corrected on 18th December 2019, (hereinafter "the impugned Award"). The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"Set aside the Impugned Majority Award passed by (Retd.) Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy and Sh. K.K. Madan ("Ld. Majority Tribunal") to the extent that it allows the claims of the Respondent and rejected Counter-Claims No. 1,2,10,13,14,16 and 17;
(b) Set aside the Impugned Minority Award passed by the V. K. Tyagi ("Ld. Minority Tribunal");"
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The following course of events has led to the controversy and disputes between the parties which are before this Court:
a. The petitioner proposed a Hydro Electric Project on river Chenab at Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter "the work"). On 10th April 1995, the petitioner invited fresh bids for the work, after the same was abandoned by a previous awardee of the work, namely Dumaz-Sogea Borie SAE and was continued by the petitioner on its own between 1992 to 1995.
b. In
The Arbitral Tribunal must provide reasons for its award, and it cannot pass an award on the basis of equity without express authorization from the parties.
An arbitral award must be supported by reasoning and evidence; a Minority Award is merely an opinion and cannot prevail over a Majority Award; the Court cannot modify an arbitral award.
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 ....
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 ....
Clauses in contracts that prohibit claims for damages are against public policy and void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as they undermine the sanctity of contracts.
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
