Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd – Appellant
Versus
David Parkar Construction Ltd C/O I B Patel (P A Holder) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Aniruddha P. Mayee, J.
1. The present First Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Arbitration Act’ for sake brevity) impugns the judgment and order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Arbitration Misc. Application No.160 of 2002, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and set aside the award dated 3.6.2002.
2. The relevant facts in the present case are that the appellant herein had invited tenders through its Superintending Engineer (Civil) for the work of construction of Multi-storied “DType” (20 residential units) for ONGC Township at Vadodara. The bid of the respondent contractor / claimant came to be accepted. Thereafter, an agreement came to be executed between the parties. As per the agreement, tender work was to commence from 31.3.1985 and was to be completed on or before 30.6.1986, and accordingly, work order dated 16.3.1985 came to be issued. That various disputes arose with respect to execution of the work between the parties. The respondent contractor filed Special Civil Suit No.110 of 1988 raising various c
The court reaffirmed that interference with arbitral awards is restricted to specific legal grounds, emphasizing the finality of arbitrator decisions based on contractual terms.
The court affirmed that an arbitral award can be set aside if it contravenes the terms of the contract or exceeds the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, emphasizing the importance of notified claims.
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 may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
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 jurisdiction of courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to specific legal grounds, and mere disagreement with arbitral findings does not suffice for setting aside an awa....
The court confirmed the validity of the Arbitrator's findings regarding excess work claims and the correct application of interest, highlighting that overlapping interest claims were erroneous.
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
