Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
RPG Cables Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to arbitral award under section 34 (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of ofc supply issues (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. timeline of disputes and arbitration commencement (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. evidence presentation and award issuance (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. petitioner's contentions on liability and warranty (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. errors and allegations against the arbitrator's award (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. respondent's arguments against interference (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 8. scope of judicial review in arbitration (Para 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 9. mandatory minimum service life of cables (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 10. evaluation of technical evidence and expert findings (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 11. defective manufacturing and deterioration findings (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 12. finality of arbitrators' decisions in technical disputes (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 13. consideration of historical precedents in arbitration (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77) |
| 14. commercial gestures and admissions of liability (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 15. conclusion on the validity of the awa |
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 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....
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 court affirmed that an entity can claim compensation for work performed under a non-finalized contract if the work was conducted at the direction of another party, underscoring the principle of q....
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
