Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
Hamilton Heights Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Build Estates Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputes relate to amounts claimed for work. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the award. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court's validation of arbitral award. (Para 13 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. principles of patent illegality in arbitral awards. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 5. conclusion and order dismissing the petition. (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner 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 30.06.2018 (hereafter the `impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.
2. The disputes between the parties relate to the amount claimed by the respondent as due and payable for the work executed pursuant to their agreement dated 11.11.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had overbilled and was overpaid up to the 12th RA Bill. The petitioner contends that impugned award, which accepts the amount payable to the respondent against the 14th RA Bill, is patently illegal as the 14th RA Bill raised by the respondent
An arbitral award can only be annulled on limited grounds of patent illegality or violation of public policy; mere errors in evidence appreciation do not suffice.
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'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 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....
The entitlement to compensation for overheads incurred during the extended period of the agreement and the calculation of rates for extra items were central legal points established in the judgment.
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....
The court confirmed the validity of the Arbitrator's findings regarding excess work claims and the correct application of interest, highlighting that overlapping interest claims were erroneous.
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
