Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Aadhar Stumbh Township Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
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 14.07.2020 (hereafter the `impugned award') passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereafter the `Arbitral Tribunal').
2. The petitioner states that after the impugned award was delivered, the parties filed an application under Section 33 of the A&C Act seeking certain corrections. The Arbitral Tribunal disposed of the said application. Therefore, the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act is required to be reckoned from that date.
3. The petitioner states that on 10.12.2020, the petitioner filed its petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the District Court being OMP (COMM) 101/2020 captioned Union of India v. M/s Aadhar Stumbh Township Pvt. Ltd. However, the said petition was disposed of as withdrawn on 23.08.2021 with liberty to approach this Court.
4. The order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned District Court is not placed on record. However, the petitioner has asserted that the Court had granted liberty to th
Claims can still be made post-final bill if made under coercion; the final arbiter's decisions should not contravene public policy.
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....
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 jurisdiction to consider claim amounts and reject specific claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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....
Failure to raise claims for escalation in a timely manner and acceptance of payments in full and final settlement preclude further claims.
The court held that claims for arbitration are not barred by limitation if ongoing negotiations substantiate the cause of action arising upon refusal of payment, not upon contract completion.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period under the Arbitration Act and the requirement for parties to exercise their rights....
The court ruled that claims regarding limitation and the validity of invoking arbitration must be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, reaffirming the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation A....
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
