Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Board of Trustees of Deendayal Port – Appellant
Versus
M. S. Khurana – Respondent
ORDER :
Pranav Trivedi, J.
1. The present First Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1996”) impugn the judgment and order dated 31.12.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Gandhidham-Kachchh in Civil Misc. Application (Arbitration) No. 23 of 2021, whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and confirmed the arbitral award dated 01.03.2013.
2. The relevant facts in the present case are that the appellant is a body Corporate constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 working under the direct control of Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. The respondent is a Partnership Firm, who was granted with tenderer work by the appellant vide work order dated 13.4.1999 with instructions to commence the work from 28.4.1999. The time-line to complete the same was within 6 months. The work order constitute of Construction of Demolition and dismantling Sheds Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and its connected building and providing facilities in lieu of existing facilities in Cargo Jetty Area. Due to delay in work order, dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent. This
The court confirmed that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited to specific grounds, emphasizing respect for the arbitral process and the finality of awards.
The court upheld the principle that arbitral awards should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of public policy or a patent illegality.
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 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 court affirmed that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited, focusing on the necessity of cogent reasoning and adherence to public policy.
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.
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
The court reaffirmed that judicial intervention in arbitration under Sections 34 and 37 is limited to ensuring no substantial legal errors occurred, emphasizing the importance of respecting the arbit....
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
