Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
Executive Engineer National Highway Division – Appellant
Versus
S&P Infrastructure Developers (P.) Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. limitation for filing petitions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. background of the contract and disputes (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 3. claims and counterclaims in arbitration (Para 32 , 33) |
| 4. arbitration tribunal's award (Para 34 , 35) |
| 5. challenging the arbitrators' findings (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 6. final decision of the court (Para 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
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 (hereafter the `impugned award') dated 01.09.2019 delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Mr B.D. Joshi, former Engineer-in-Chief, Himachal Pradesh PWD, Mr Kamlesh Kumar, former Additional Director General, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India and Mr. S.N. Das, former Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary to the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India as the Presiding Arbitrator (hereafter the `Arbitral Tribunal').
2. The respondent has opposed the present petition on the ground that it i
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.
Claims can still be made post-final bill if made under coercion; the final arbiter's decisions should not contravene public policy.
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 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 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....
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.
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
