Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
TDI International India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act, challenging theAward dated 19.02.2010 , Impugned Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the matter titled “M/s TDI International India Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.”
2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the challenge in the present Petition is confined only to Claim Nos. 1 and 3. The findings rendered by the learned Arbitrator in respect of the remaining claims have attained finality and are not under challenge before this Court.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The Petitioner, who was the Claimant in the arbitral proceedings, is a company engaged in the business of outdoor, indoor, and transit advertising. In October 2006, the Respondent herein (Respondent in the arbitral proceedings) invited tenders for the grant of advertisement rights in Line 3 (East Extension) of MRTS Phase-I, covering Mandi House, Pragati Maidan, and Indraprastha Metro Stations.
4. The Petitioner participated in the tender process and was declared the successful bidder. Accordingly, a Letter of Acceptance dated
Judicial intervention under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited; an award may only be set aside for contravention of public policy or patent illegality, rather than disagreements over contra....
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 court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
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 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 confirmed that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited to cases of patent illegality or perverse findings, respecting the finality of arbitration.
Limited grounds for interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
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
