PRATEEK JALAN
Crest Education (p) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Career Launcher (I) Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
O.M.P. (COMM) 57/2017
1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "the Act"], is directed against an arbitral award dated 18.08.2012, rendered by a sole arbitrator. The learned arbitrator has adjudicated disputes between the parties under an agreement dated 31.12.2008 [hereinafter, "the Contract"]. By the impugned award, the respondent has been awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,80,987/- by way of damages, arrears towards license fee and study material, and costs, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim.
A. Facts.
2. The respondent is a company engaged in the business of providing educational services through class room coaching as well as online training for various competitive examinations like Common Admission Test [CAT] and Common Law Admission Test [CLAT]. The arbitral proceedings concern license granted to the petitioner to conduct and deliver courses at three professional learning centres of the petitioner in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh under the respondent's brand name. A Contract dated 31.12.2008, for one of the centres, has been placed on record. The Contract was for the period 01.01.20
Dwaraka Das vs. State of M.P., (1999) 3 SCC 500 [Para 20
A.T. Brij Paul Singh vs. State of Gujarat
Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority
Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. vs. Coca Cola Co.
Niranjan Shankar Golikari vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
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.
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....
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....
The court upheld the arbitrator's decision on breach of contract, illegality of termination, and grant of damages, while denying the claim for interest.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.