Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Esteem Projects Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Lloyd Insulations India Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding limitation and claim. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of correspondence and claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. final decision to dismiss the appeal. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning a judgment dated 12.03.2020 (hereafter `the impugned judgment') passed by the learned Commercial Court, whereby the appellant's application (being Arbitration Petition No. 1947 of 2018) under Section 34 of the A&C Act, seeking to set aside an interim arbitral award dated 07.05.2018 (hereafter `the impugned award'), was rejected.
Factual Context
2. On 06.09.2008, the appellant awarded three work orders for the work of "Detailed Engineering, Supply and Installation of Refractory Lining of HGU Reformer Package of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd at Bongaigaon, Assam" (hereafter `the Project') to the respondent. The date of completion of the Project was stipulated to be 30.04.200
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.
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.
Claims in arbitration must adhere to statutory limitation periods; failure to comply renders them non-maintainable, emphasizing the strict nature of limitation under arbitration law.
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 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 court affirmed that claims in arbitration must be asserted within the limitation period, and undue delays in invoking arbitration can render claims invalid.
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....
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.
Failure to raise claims for escalation in a timely manner and acceptance of payments in full and final settlement preclude further claims.
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
