Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
EAST INDIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The Petitioner/Airports Authority of India has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an Award dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to this petition are as under:-
i. The Petitioner issued a tender for 'resurfacing of existing runway at Biju Patnaik International Airport, Bhubaneswar'. It is stated that the Respondent participated in the tender and submitted its bid. It is stated that the bid of the Respondent was accepted by the Petitioner and the same was communicated to the Respondent on 24.10.2019. By the said communication, the Respondent was informed that the amount of earnest money deposit of Rs.46,78,000/- which was submitted along with the tender by the Respondent was treated and converted as a part of security deposit. The Respondent was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 71,07,816/- towards the security deposit. The Respondent was also directed to submit a performance bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,17,85,816/- as per the tender document.
ii. Material on record indicates that the Respondent submitted the
The encashment of a performance bank guarantee does not require proof of loss, but must comply with the contract's terms; failure to evaluate these terms constitutes patent illegality.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contract terms, breach of contract, and the limited scope of interference with the arbitrator's award based on the violation ....
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....
Appellate courts have limited grounds for interfering with arbitral awards under the Arbitration Act, primarily focused on patent illegality, evidential sufficiency, and compliance with contractual o....
The court ruled that an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is strict in nature with a non-extendable time limit, and appeals fil....
Wrongful encashment of a bank guarantee can be claimed as restitution rather than strictly under damages, highlighting the sufficiency of entitlement rather than extensive evidence. This determinatio....
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.
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
