Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
C & C Constructions Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ircon International Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the application under section 34 challenges an arbitral award. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellant contends claims were wrongly dismissed under clause 49.5. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on natural justice and its application. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. debate on validity and implications of clause 49.5. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. scope of the court's interference under section 37 is limited. (Para 16) |
| 6. appeal dismissed with no further grounds for interference. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
CM No.8193/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) No.36/2021
3. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugns the judgment/order dated 15th December, 2020 of the Commercial Division of this Court of dismissal of application of the appellant under Section 34 of the said Act.
4. The application under Section 34 of the Act, being OMP(COMM) No.566/2020, was filed with respect to arbitral award dated 21st December, 2019 (of three Arbitrators, with the appellant and the respondent having nominated one Arbitrator each
The court upheld the finality of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reaffirming that claims barred by contract ....
The scope of interference with the Arbitral Award under Section 37 is narrower and more limited than under Section 34.
The enforceability of limitation clauses in contracts is valid, and parties are bound by prior agreements regarding damage claims, reinforcing their contractual obligations.
A deleted contractual clause cannot be automatically revived upon extension of the contract; explicit agreement is required for revival.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the importance of interpreting the contract a....
The court established that the timeline for invoking arbitration under the General Condition of Contract is critical and that the arbitrator's jurisdiction is determined by the latest relevant decisi....
Point of Law : Powers of the court U/S. 34 is limited and courts should not expand their own powers granted by the statute. Any such attempts by the courts while exercising their powers under S.34 of....
The Court's power while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is limited, and it cannot undertake an independent assessment on the merits of the Award.
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
