Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of arbitration agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. dispute about supply prices and tender process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 19) |
| 3. notification and response regarding the impugned award. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. issues related to limitation period and delays. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 5. judgment on merits and breach of contract. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 6. conclusion and costs imposed. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (ORAL)--The petitioner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereafter `HPCL') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the `A&C Act') impugning an Arbitral Award dated 28.11.2019 (hereafter the `impugned award') rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between HPCL and the respondent (DTC) in respect of a contract for supply of lubricants.
2. DTC is a corporation engaged in providing public transport services. HPCL is one of the public sector oil marketing company. DTC had issued a limited inquiry inviting tenders from four public sector oil marketing compani
A rise in commodity prices does not frustrate a contract; parties must fulfill contractual obligations despite financial challenges.
Commercial unviability of a contract is not a valid ground to evade performance.
The limitation period for claims in arbitration commences upon receipt of notice invoking arbitration, not from the breach date, and claims cannot be barred if defenses were not properly raised.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the due diligence of the claimant in pursuing its claims are crucial factors ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot raise new defenses at a later stage and that interest awarded in excess of the claim made by a party is not valid.
Statutory limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is strict and cannot be relaxed without sufficient justification; defective petitions lead to being treated as non-est.
The arbitral tribunal's decision to deny claims for damages due to lack of supporting evidence is valid under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing minimal judicial interfer....
The court confirmed that arbitral awards can only be set aside under specific grounds outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming the validity of the arbitrator's decision regarding l....
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
