Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh
GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of parties and arbitration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on the delay of award. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. respondent's refutation of petitioner's claims. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. court's analysis on judicial review standards. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 5. implications of delay in arbitration awards. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 6. setting aside the award for public policy violation. (Para 54) |
| 7. final conclusion and order. (Para 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. The present petition is filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) assailing the Arbitral Award dated 27.11.2017 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator wherein all the 16 claims raised by the petitioner were rejected.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. M/s GL Event Services and M/s Meroform (India) Pvt. Ltd. formed a consortium and signed a Consortium Agreement dated 19.05.2009 to bid for a tender related to the Commonwealth Games 2010, which were scheduled to be held in Delhi in October, 2010.The consortium fo
Substantial delay in pronouncing an arbitral award undermines justice and can be grounds for setting aside the award under public policy considerations.
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
Inordinate delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award, without sufficient justification, renders the award patently illegal and subject to annulment under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conci....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not interfere with an arbitral award unless the arbitrator's conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. The court's ....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
Delay in passing an arbitral award must be justified; unexplained delays can invalidate the award under public policy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the absolute and unextendible nature of the time-limit prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge an aw....
The scope for judicial intervention in arbitral awards is strictly limited to clear violations of public policy or patent illegality; mere procedural errors or delays do not warrant the award's setti....
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
