Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
KMC Construction Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
National Highway Authority of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the arbitration case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of claims and counter-claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. modification application filed by kmc. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments presented by kmc in arbitration. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's analysis and observations on claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 6. final ruling and order of the court. (Para 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioner (hereafter `KMC') 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 24.09.2019 (hereafter `the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by three members (hereafter `the Arbitral Tribunal'). KMC also impugns an order dated 21.11.2019 (hereafter the `revised order'), whereby its application under Section 33 of the A&C Act was rejected.
2. KMC challenges the impugned award in respect of its Claims Nos. 3, 5, 13, 19 and 22.
3. Br
The court emphasized that arbitration awards must adhere strictly to contract terms regarding payment and interest, rejecting arbitrary reductions of entitlement.
The court held that the rejection of KMC's claims for escalation, additional payment, early completion bonus, and loss due to non-release of Performance Bank Guarantee was not illegal. However, the c....
The court affirmed that arbitral awards are upheld unless blatant illegality is shown, emphasizing the tribunal's final authority under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Patent illegality should be illegality which goes to the root of the matter. In other words, every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression ‘patent illegal....
The inapplicability of the ground of patent illegality to international commercial arbitration and the importance of interpreting specific contractual clauses in determining the validity of claims an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 to an international commercial arbitration, and the ....
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 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 court upheld the tribunal's award, concluding that the claims did not fall under 'excepted matters' and corroborated the contractor's entitlement to claims based on inadequate adjudication by the....
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
