Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
Nokia Solutions and Network India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Petition has been instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , A&C Act, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 11.03.2016 , Impugned Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
2. The challenge in the present proceedings is directed primarily against the findings recorded in the Impugned Award, in particular those relating to the adjudication of Claims A to E. The Petitioner seeks to assail the conclusions arrived at by the learned Arbitrator under these heads. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award pertaining to Claims A to E is reproduced hereunder:
“Claims A to E
The main question before the Tribunal, therefore, is whether the claimant is entitled to be paid @ Rs.4273 per line on account of it having completed the supplies by 28th February 1995 or it is entitled to be paid @ Rs.4145 per line due to its having not completed the supplies by 28th February 1995 because of GD Tubes having been supplied only in July, 1995. The question is as to whether by non-supply of GD tubes of the value of Rs.19,15,552 out of the total co
The court affirmed that limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for re-evaluation of arbitration awards unless they are demonstrably perverse, illegal, or devoi....
The court upheld the validity of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference and the necessity of demonstrating clear error or illegality.
Judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to assessing non-compliance with public policy or blatant errors; arbitral awards will not be disturbed unless they....
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 limited scope of intervention by Courts in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need to satisfy specific grounds for setting aside an arbitral....
The court upheld the arbitrator's award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference in arbitration matters.
The court upheld that a minimum service life of Optical Fibre Cables, guaranteed at 20 years, imposes liability regardless of warranty expiry, reinforcing obligations established in contractual terms....
The interpretation of contractual clauses by an Arbitrator cannot be interfered with unless it is unreasonable or against settled legal principles.
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
