Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
National Highways Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
PCL-STICCO (JV) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of arbitration and contractual obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. claims made by the respondent in arbitration. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. observations on the legality of nhai’s actions. (Para 13 , 14 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. grounds for dismissing claims of patent illegality. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 5. conclusion and order dismissing the petition. (Para 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter `NHAI') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter `the A&C Act') impugning an Arbitral Award dated 15.12.2015 (hereinafter `the impugned award') delivered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three members - Justice (Retd.) Shri E. Padmanabhan, Shri T.C. Bhagoria and Shri Surjeet Singh as the Presiding Arbitrator (hereinafter `the Arbitral Tribunal').
2. The impugned award was rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of disputes that had arisen between the parties in connection with the Agreement for "Widening to 4/6 lanes and strengthening of existing 2-Lane Carriageway of NH-5 in the State of Orissa from Km 284.00
An expulsion under a contract must have legitimate causes, and unjustified actions by one party render such expulsion illegal, reaffirming constraints under arbitration frameworks.
The arbitral Tribunal found NHaI's actions to expel the respondent from the site was unjustified and illegal based on various grounds, including the delay in granting Extension of Time (EOT) and the ....
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....
Inconsistent findings across arbitral awards do not provide grounds for setting aside an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 ....
Execution of the works was delayed and the respondent sought Extension of Time for completion of the works on successive occasions, which were approved by NHAI.
The main legal point established is that an arbitral award must be based on relevant material and evidence, and claims for loss of profit must be substantiated with evidence of missed opportunities.
NHAI is contractually obliged to pay 90% of the Debt Due to lenders irrespective of defaults by the concessionaire, with no deductions permitted.
Point of Law - Limited scope of the jurisdiction of this Court vested in it by Section 34 of the 1996 Act, no occasion arises for this Court to revisit the said findings of the learned Arbitral Tribu....
Point of Law : Limited scope of the jurisdiction of this Court vested in it by Section 34 of the 1996 Act, no occasion arises for this Court to revisit the said findings of the learned Arbitral Tribu....
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
