Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, AMIT MAHAJAN
Dusters Total Solutions Services Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant challenges validity of arbitral award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. relevant facts of the case outlined. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. district judge dismisses the petition under section 34. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 4. arguments of both parties presented. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. court analyzes the case, discusses evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. deliberation on legal standards of review. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. findings on encashment of performance security. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. sufficient evidence for findings determined. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. petitioner's arguments on reappreciation considered. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 10. discussion on standard for interference under a&c act. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. rejection of claims for modifying the contract. (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 12. final dismissal of appeal and conclusion drawn. (Para 49 , 50 , 52) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through the present Appeal under Section 37 (1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as 'A&C Act'], the Appellant (Petitioner before the District Judge) assails the correctness of the order dated 25.01.2024 [hereinafter referre
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....
Judicial scrutiny under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited; courts must respect arbitral awards unless proven to violate public policy or statutory obligations, affirming the principle t....
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 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....
Point of law: Arbitration Award - It must clearly be understood that when a court is applying the "public policy" test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently e....
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 judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
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
