Back
JASMEET SINGH
Netaji Subhash Institute Of Technology – Appellant
Versus
Surya Engineers – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
O.M.P.(COMM) 48/2020
1. This is a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking setting aside of the impugned Arbitral Award dated 04.08.2007 passed by the respondent no. 2, i.e. the learned Arbitrator.
2. The petitioner has impleaded the learned Arbitrator in the present petition. This is an unusual practice and should be deterred. The Arbitrator is not a party to the proceedings but sits as an adjudicator over the dispute between the parties. He is a creature of the agreement to adjudicate the inter-se disputes arisen between the parties and not personally involved or personally liable in any other way. Impleadment of Arbitrators, as parties to the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have the potential to jeopardize the sanctity of arbitral proceedings, especially since adequate framework for challenging the decision taken by the Arbitrator is in existence. In this view, the impleadment of the Arbitrator need not be done. Respondent No. 2 is deleted from the array of parties.
3. Henceforth, respondent no. 1 is being referred to as “respondent”.
Facts
4. The brief facts encapsulating th
The court upheld the Arbitrator's findings that the rescission of the contract was unjust and delays were primarily attributable to the petitioner, affirming the award under Section 34 of the Arbitra....
The court affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards unless stark violations of public policy or procedural....
Arbitration authority includes interpreting contract terms and assessing evidence; coercion in contract amendments can lead to enforceable claims for damages due to delays.
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
The Court emphasized the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act and the need for evidence to support claims for loss of profit.
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 arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited grounds for challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 of the A&C Act, emphasizing the principles of public policy and fundamental In....
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
