Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Sumac International Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
The instant Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1996’) seeking to challenge the Arbitral Award dated 17.12.2020, after the dismissal of the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 by the Additional District Judge, at Rajpipala, District : Narmada vide order dated 01.03.2024.
2. The main ground of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the entire award revolves around the terms of the supplementary agreement and the terms and conditions of the main agreement, which have been conveniently ignored by the learned Arbitrator. As per the condition No.‘11’ of the supplementary agreement, the supplementary agreement dated 15.10.1992 was subject to the approval of the State Government, which was never granted. All the breaches mentioned in the award at the ends of the appellant, are with reference to the supplementary agreement and there is no finding with regard to breach of Clause ‘17.6’ of the original agreement. Reference has been made to Clause ‘17.6’ of the original agreement to submit that once the contractor/claimant has abandoned the contra
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and highlighted the principle that the court does not sit in appeal over....
The court confirmed that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited to cases of patent illegality or perverse findings, respecting the finality of arbitration.
The court established that the timeline for invoking arbitration under the General Condition of Contract is critical and that the arbitrator's jurisdiction is determined by the latest relevant decisi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the importance of interpreting the contract a....
The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The judgment reinforces the principle that courts have limited grounds to interfere with arbitral awards, respecting the finality of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
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....
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
