Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JASMEET SINGH
Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
E.M. Services(I) Pvt Ltd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case including nature of dispute. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. This is a petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 18.06.2010 wherein the claims of the respondent were allowed to the tune of Rs. 34,71,073 less Rs. 1,20,000/- as penalty, along with 9% interest per annum.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking of Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and a company duly registered under the provisions of Companies Act, is engaged in the business of power generation and distribution. The respondent is a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of supply of spares and maintenance of power equipments.
3. The petitioner had floated a tender for supply and replacement of critical spares and commissioning at 62.5MWGE USA make Turbine of Unit No. 2 at I.P. Station vide tender no. DGM (M)/IPS/T-20/1654 dated 30.01.2004. The respondent submitted its offer on 17.02.2004. Thereafter the petitioner invited the respondent for negotiation with the Tender Com
Refusal to frame issues on counterclaims violates fundamental principles of justice, warranting judicial intervention.
The Court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to award foreclosure compensation and reject the counterclaim, finding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the contract was within its jurisdiction....
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 limitation period for arbitration claims commences from the date of the Cure Notice, and claims not filed within three years are barred, affirming the arbitrator's findings.
The Court emphasized the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act and the need for evidence to support claims for loss of profit.
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
