Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, SACHIN DATTA
Gillanders arbuthnot and co. Limited – Appellant
Versus
Steel Authority Of India Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Limited (hereafter GACL), a company incorporated under the Company Act, 1956 has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) impugning a judgment dated 06.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned judgment) delivered by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P.(COMM) 269/2023 captioned Steel Authority of India Limited v. Beijing Sino Steel Industry and Trade Group Corporation, China and Ors., Respondent no.1 (hereafter SAIL) had preferred the said application [O.M.P.(COMM) 269/2023] under Section 34 of the A&C Act for setting aside an arbitral award dated 11.04.2023 (hereafter the impugned award) rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter the Arbitral Tribunal) comprising of three members. The learned Single Judge allowed the said petition and has set aside the impugned award. Aggrieved by the same, GACL has filed the present appeal.
2. The arbitral proceedings were conducted under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (hereafter the ICC Rules). The parties had agreed to the place of arbitration as New Delhi. There is no dispute that the
The court affirmed that claims for breach of contract are subject to statutory limitation periods, which cannot be extended by claims of continuing breaches.
The court can set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 if it violates substantive law, contract terms, or public policy, especially when procedural requirements aren't met or if the award is pate....
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....
Claim of damages against JOPL in respect of another contract - There was no requirement for JOPL to lead any evidence. Its claim was founded on an admission on part of SAIL that sums as claimed were ....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
An arbitral award can only be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if the appellant establishes that the award is in conflict with the public policy of India, is p....
The court upheld the validity of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference and the necessity of demonstrating clear error or illegality.
The court upheld that separate contracts cannot justify claims for set-off, affirming that the awarded interest is not contrary to Indian law principles.
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
