Back
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Goel & Goel – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
1. The present Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `A&C Act') for setting aside the Award dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Sole Arbitrator vide which the claim of the respondent for damages has been allowed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking working under the aegis of the Ministry of Railways, (which was the respondent before the Arbitrator) issued a Tender Notice dated 11.09.2006for allocating license to operate Food Plazas at the CST (Main and Sub-urban) Station in Mumbai. The Respondent herein (who was the claimant before the ld. Arbitrator) being the highest bidder, was awarded the license for the Food Plazas for a license fee of Rs.31,31,313/- and Rs.44,00,000/-,which was operational for a period of 9 years as provided in the General Conditions of License, vide letter of Award dated 23.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 respectively. Following the same, the parties entered into an Agreement dated 20.03.2008 which came into effect on the commencement of operation in the respective units on 01.10.2008 and 28.02.2009.
3. T
The court upheld the arbitrator's decision on breach of contract, illegality of termination, and grant of damages, while denying the claim for interest.
Judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to assessing non-compliance with public policy or blatant errors; arbitral awards will not be disturbed unless they....
The court upheld the validity of damages awarded to the respondent based on implied findings of invalid termination, interpretation of the liquidated damages clause, and quantification of damages.
The court held that an arbitral award compelling the renewal of a determinable contract is legally unsustainable and suffers from patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliatio....
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
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 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....
Point of law: Arbitration Award - It must clearly be understood that when a court is applying the "public policy" test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently e....
An arbitral award can only be set aside on specific grounds, including patent illegality and violation of public policy, and the arbitrator's findings must be supported by evidence and not be pervers....
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
