Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, MANOJ JAIN
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Kendriya Bhandar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manoj Jain, J. The present appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "said Act") impugns order dated 02.02.2022 passed by Sh. Sanjiv Jain, learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby, the objection petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of said Act has been dismissed.
2. Let us refer to the facts germane for the disposal of the present appeal.
3. A tender was floated by the appellant for procurement of 1200 Metric Tons (MT) of `Rajma'.
4. The respondent participated in such tender process and was awarded work contract to supply 1200 Metric Tons (MT) of `Rajma'. The delivery schedule was finalized and the quantity was to be supplied in phased manner on stipulated rates.
5. The appellant issued acceptance letter on 09.06.2011. The total value of the work was Rs.4,44,60,000/-.
6. The respondent submitted unconditional Bank Guarantee of Rs.44,46,000/- as per the stipulated terms and conditions of the contract.
7. The appellant extended the delivery period from time to time and eventually issued `performance notice' dated 20.01.2012 directing respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's interference with an arbitral award is limited to specific grounds, and it does not undertake an independent assessment of the mer....
The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference with an arbitral award and the requirement to establish actual losses or damages before claiming 'general damages' or forfeiture of Bank Guarant....
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
An arbitral award may not be set aside unless there is patent illegality, which must go to the root of the matter; mere non-performance or absence of evidence for loss does not invalidate the award.
The court clarified the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and emphasized the importance of timely goods delivery in contractual obligations.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to contract terms and the requirement for proof of loss or damage before invoking a Bank Guarantee.
The court affirmed that limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for re-evaluation of arbitration awards unless they are demonstrably perverse, illegal, or devoi....
The court affirmed that an entity can claim compensation for work performed under a non-finalized contract if the work was conducted at the direction of another party, underscoring the principle of q....
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
