Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Shawl Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure of respondent to respond forfeits right to reply. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appointment of arbitrators pursuant to arbitration act. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. general conditions of contract provisions on arbitration. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. agreement to refer disputes to independent arbitrator. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. court's orders on arbitration and disposal of the petition. (Para 11 , 13) |
1. Despite repeated opportunity, no reply is on record, filed by the respondent.
2. The right to place the reply on record, accordingly stands forfeited.
3. This is a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of arbitrators, to arbitrate on the dispute/disputes between the parties.
4. The dispute arises out of a contract, dated 23nd November, 2013, between the petitioner and the respondent for "construction of two lane road over bridge in lieu of level crossing No. 507 at Km. 1542/26-28 near Dausni Railway station along with other allied works on Laksar-Saharanpur-Tender Opened on dated-06.03.2013".
5. The contract being with the Ministry of Northern Railways, Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contrac
The court emphasizes the right to arbitration under the contractual agreement when disputes arise, affirming the appointment of arbitrators for effective resolution.
The court upheld the right to arbitration as per the terms of the contract, emphasizing the importance of adherence to contractual dispute resolution mechanisms.
Parties with an arbitration clause must resolve disputes through arbitration, as established in the contract terms.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
The Arbitral Tribunal has considerable discretion in evaluating evidence and interpreting contract clauses, and its decision cannot be interfered with unless found to be patently illegal or in confli....
The Arbitral Tribunal's decision falls within its jurisdiction and does not amount to patent illegality, as it was based on a plausible interpretation of the exclusionary clause in the contracts and ....
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.
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
