Back
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Union of India, Represented by the Chief Engineer – Appellant
Versus
Build Worth Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, the learned counsel representing the respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the judgment and order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) in Misc. Arb. Case No.9 of 2006 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. The appellant Union of India is represented by the Chief Engineer, Project Dantak, C/O. 99 APO and the respondent is a private limited company.
4. On the basis of an agreement between both sides, the respondent was given the task of designing and erection of six bridges on Indo-Bangladesh border roads under project Dantak in the State of Meghalaya. Out of the six bridges, for five of them, there was a stipulated construction time of 270 days. It was not done accordingly and therefore, an extension of time of 159 days was given. Even within that time period, the construction of the bridges could not be completed. There was further extension of time given to the respondent. In fact, the respondent had taken a total of 1258 days against original stipulated time peri
The judgment emphasizes the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, highlighting the need for restraint by courts while examini....
Point of Law : Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court. Such award is opposed to public policy and is required to be adjudged void....
The court affirmed that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it cannot reassess the merits of an arbitral award unless it violates public policy or is patently illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the requirement for th....
Limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the Court's reluctance to re-adjudicate disputes on their merits.
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
