Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, AMIT MAHAJAN
L and D JV – Appellant
Versus
Container Corporation of India Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. The present Appeal, preferred by the Appellant, assails the correctness of judgment and order dated 05.08.2025 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P.(COMM) 440/2024, whereby the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘1996 Act’] challenging the arbitral award dated 04.07.2024, passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, came to be dismissed.
2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court ought to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant’s petition under Section 34 , particularly when the arbitral award rests on a finding that the Appellant is barred from raising any claim on account of the No Claim Certificate and allied declarations executed by it.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal, it would be apposite to briefly advert to the material facts giving rise thereto.
4. The Re
Arbitral awards are upheld where the claims are barred by pre-existing certificates and where the burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate additional work claims.
Claims in arbitration must adhere to statutory limitation periods; failure to comply renders them non-maintainable, emphasizing the strict nature of limitation under arbitration law.
The appellate court affirmed that an arbitral award must demonstrate adequate reasoning connecting evidence to conclusions, without requiring extensive elaboration, to avoid interference under Sectio....
The appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
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 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....
The court clarified the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and emphasized the importance of timely goods delivery in contractual obligations.
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
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
