Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Parishudh Machines Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing objections. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the arbitrator's award. (Para 2 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. facts surrounding contract and award. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. scope of judicial review under section 34 of the arbitration act. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. arbitrator's findings on contractual terms and machine specifications. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 6. final conclusion on dismissal of the petition. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.(Oral)
I.A. 12631/2019 (for delay)
This is an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of 54 days delay in re-filing the objections.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 54 days in re-filing the objections is allowed. The application is disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 372/2019
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for setting aside the impugned Award dated April 22, 2019 passed by the learned Arbitrator.
2
An arbitrator's decision can only be challenged under limited grounds; violations must be significant to justify setting aside the award.
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, and the emphasis on reasonableness, natural justice, and....
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
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....
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
