Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AVNEESH JHINGAN
Jay Fe Cylinders Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Manish Jain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. formation and termination of the mou and agreements. (Para 2 , 3 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments regarding refund claims. (Para 5) |
| 3. respondent's defense and emphasis on limited scope of appeal. (Para 6) |
| 4. interpretation of mou clauses relating to commission obligations. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. validation of claims and assessment of evidence presented. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. legal basis for setting aside the arbitral award. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') is filed aggrieved of the arbitral award dated 14.12.2022.
2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Gas Cylinders. The petitioner approached a foreign collaborator RT Chemical Technologies and Composite Materials, a Joint Stock Company for manufacturing Polymer Composite Gas Balloons/Cylinders for storage and transportation of CNG & LPG. On 02.09.2016 Memorandum on Joint Participation in Investment Project (for short 'MOJP') was executed between the petition
An arbitral award may be set aside if it ignores the express terms of the governing agreement or imposes obligations not agreed upon, constituting a patent illegality.
The interpretation of contractual obligations under the Business Associate Agreement supports an Appellant's liability to pay despite secondary payment mechanisms being outlined, reaffirming the need....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference by the court under Section 34 of the Act, emphasizing that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or reassess fa....
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a limited window of challenge to an arbitral award, and a violation of a statute, not tied to public policy or public interest, cannot serv....
The findings of the Arbitrator, that the claimants are not entitled to damages from the respondents; the breach of the MOU on the part of the KMDA, recorded before the Arbitrator, are sustainable and....
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
The court upheld the Arbitrator's findings that the rescission of the contract was unjust and delays were primarily attributable to the petitioner, affirming the award under Section 34 of the Arbitra....
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....
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
