Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
RPG Cables Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , [A&C Act], assailing theArbitral Award dated 05.11.2008 , [Impugned Award] passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, to the limited extent that the said Award directs the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 12.63 crores to the Respondent. In addition to challenging the aforesaid direction, the Petitioner also seeks, by way of the present Petition, appropriate orders granting the reliefs which were originally claimed by the Petitioner before the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
2. By the impugned Award, the learned Arbitrator substantially rejected the claims raised by the Petitioner and also disallowed a significant portion of the counter-claims preferred by the Respondent. However, while partly allowing the Respondent’s counter-claims, the learned Arbitrator held that the Petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 12.63 crores to the Respondent towards the cost of unusable Optical Fibre Cables, OFCs supplied under the contract. The learned Arbitrator further directed that, upon receipt of the said amount, the Respondent shall release all pending payment
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....
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 interpretation of contractual clauses by an Arbitrator cannot be interfered with unless it is unreasonable or against settled legal principles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to consider Clause 702 of the IRS conditions led to a patent illegality in the award, justifying its setting aside.
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
