Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
United Drilling Tools Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of arbitration case. (Para 5 , 14) |
| 2. petitioner's claims for interest are presented. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. respondent's defenses against petitioner's claims. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's reasoning against interference with the award. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. conclusion of the court's decision. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
I.A. 9233/2021 (Delay)
1. This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 on behalf of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder to the reply of the respondent.
2. For the reason stated in the application, the delay of 80 days in filing the rejoinder to the reply of the respondent.
3. The application is disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 574/2020
4. The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act, 1996") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following relief:
"(a). Allow the present Petition and set aside the Award dated 10.08.2020 only in respect of Claim no. 2..."
5. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its of
The court confirmed that arbitral awards can only be set aside under specific grounds outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming the validity of the arbitrator's decision regarding l....
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's decision highlights the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that it lacked the authority to ....
Limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the Court's reluctance to re-adjudicate disputes on their merits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period under the Arbitration Act and the requirement for parties to exercise their rights....
Clauses in contracts that prohibit claims for damages are against public policy and void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as they undermine the sanctity of contracts.
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
