Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited – Appellant
Versus
Vasavi Power Services Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)
CONTENTS
| BRIEF FACTS | 389 | |
| A. | The Contracts | 390 |
| B. | The Dispute | 390 |
| C. | The Arbitration | 390 |
| GENERAL OBJECTIONS390 | ||
| A. | Limited Scope of Judicial Interference under Section 34 of the Act | 391 |
| B. | Findings on breach/delay | 391 |
| C. | Findings on Compensation/Damages | 392 |
| CLAIM-WISE OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSE | 392 | |
| A. | 40% Price increase on balance value | 392 |
| B. | Loss of Profit @ 10% on withdrawn work | 396 |
| C. | Infructuous expenses due to premature withdrawal | 399 |
| D. | Hire Charges of Tools and Plants (T&Ps) after 25th October 2011 | 401 |
| E. | Claim awarded for Loss towards Infructuous Expenses | 404 |
| F. | BG & OD charges along with Interest | 406 |
| G. | Extra Expenditure due to Bad Storage | 408 |
| H. | Refund of Security Deposit/BG and Retention Money Amount | 409 |
| I. | Legal Expenses on Actuals | 411 |
| J. | Legitimate Claims of Interest Charges i.e., Pendente Lite & Pre Reference Interest On Award Amount | 412 |
| COUNTER CLAIMS | 413 | |
1. The present petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter `the Act'] have been filed by BHEL seeking setting aside of two separate Impugned Arbitral awards, both dated 10th March, 2020, in respect of Contract No. 659/2010 and 640/2009, which have been challenged
The court confirmed that arbitrators' findings on contractual breaches and damages claims must be upheld unless shown to be improper within limited review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The court upheld the arbitrator's award, emphasizing that even without precise evidence, reasonable estimates of damages are acceptable in arbitration, reaffirming the principle that awards must be l....
The Court emphasized the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act and the need for evidence to support claims for loss of profit.
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 court upheld the Arbitrator's findings that the rescission of the contract was unjust and delays were primarily attributable to the petitioner, affirming the award under Section 34 of the Arbitra....
The scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited to reasons of law and pertains to the arbitral tribunal's adherence to the contract terms and evidence presented.
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 arbitral award cannot be sustained if it is based on assumptions without concrete evidence, particularly in claims for damages or losses, as established under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,....
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
