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
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 referred to as 'Impugned Order'], whereby the District Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the A&C Act and upheld the Arbitral Award dated 24.04.2023 [hereinafter referred to as 'Award'], passed by the learned Arbitrator.
2. Herein, the Appellant contends that the District Judge, while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate the patent illegality apparent on the face of the Award, and, in the absence of any pleading or proof of loss by the Respondent, erroneously upheld the encashment of 50% of the Performance Security by the Respondent.
3. Accordingly, the core issue that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the findings of the Arbitrator are based on no evidence and are, therefore, perverse, thereby rendering the Award vitiated by patent illegality.
4. For sake of clarity, consistency and the ease of reference, the parties in the present
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 arbitrator's award must provide intelligible reasoning; failure to do so violates public policy, allowing for it to be set aside 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
