Back
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Delhi Transco Ltd. (previously Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Delhi Vidyut Board – Appellant
Versus
Kec International Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 1996') has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Set aside the impugned Award dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal in the arbitration matter KEC International Ltd. and Delhi Transco Ltd.;
(b) Allow the counter claim made by the petitioner; and
(c) Pass such further and other orders as this Hon'ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances of this case may deem fit for which act of kindness the petitioners as in duty bound shall forever pray."
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The petitioner is Delhi Transco Ltd., (DTL), a 100% owned public sector electricity transmission utility/undertaking of the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Shakti Sadan, Kotla Road, New Delhi. The petitioner is one of the successors of the Electricity Transmission Company of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board which, in turn, succeeded Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking.
3. The respondent is KEC International (KEC), a company incorporated under
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the requirement for th....
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.
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 grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the Court's reluctance to re-adjudicate disputes on their merits.
The Court's decision highlights the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that it lacked the authority to ....
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
