Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board – Appellant
Versus
Aakar Construction – Respondent
ORDER :
Pranav Trivedi, J.
1. The instant First Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 1996”) challenging the judgment and order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Vadodara, Commercial Court (for short the “Commercial Court”) in Commercial Civil Misc. Application No. 76 of 2022, wherein the Commercial Court, rejected the application preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act.
2. The facts resulting into filing of the First Appeal is that the appellant is a Board constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978 and is wholly owned and controlled by the State of Gujarat. The appellant issued tender for the work related to ‘Dabhoi Water Supply Scheme’. The respondent participated in the tender issued by the appellant. Pursuant thereto, the parties executed the agreement dated 01.11.2011 being Agreement No. B:2-74-2011/12 and B:2/75-2011/12 for a stipulated period of 12 months. The respondent also submitted bank guarantee of Rs.31,22,150/- as per the terms and conditions of the tender.
2.1. It is the case of the appellant
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 confirmed that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited to cases of patent illegality or perverse findings, respecting the finality of arbitration.
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 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 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
