Back
A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, EASWARAN S.
Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
J U D G M E N T C.R.
Easwaran S., J.
The appeal arises from the order of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated 22.6.2010 in O.P(Arb.) No.238/2006 by which the award of the arbitral tribunal was set aside.
2. Facts of the case The appellant is a contractor who came out successful in competitive bidding for execution of the works (1) Kerala State Transport Project–RMC-01-periodic renewal of Thaikkad- Kottarakkara Road, (2) KSTP-RMC-03-periodic renewal of Thodupuzha-Kalur-Ounukal Road, (3) KSTP-RMC-08-periodic renewal of Kozhikkode-Mavoor Road and (4) KSTP-RMC-12 periodic renewal of Quilandy-Thamarassery Road.
3. In respect of Road Maintenance Contract-01 (RMC-01), notice of procedure was issued on 28.5.2002 and the original date of completion was on 27.5.2003. An amount of Rs.8,01,89,947/- was fixed and the same was revised to Rs.6,25,66,956.79. The 1 st extension period was approved with liquidated damages upto 31.7.2003 and the 2 nd extension of time was approved with liquidated damages upto 31.10.2003.
4. In respect of RMC-03, notice issued to proceed was given on 28.5.2002 and it was completed on 27.5.2003. The original
A clause restricting arbitration claims to 28 days is void under Section 28(b) of the Indian Contract Act, but the arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding disputes not referred to it.
The Supreme Court clarified that an Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction encompasses all disputes arising from a contract unless expressly limited, and failure to issue a notice under Section 21 of the A....
The court upheld the arbitral tribunal's authority to decide disputes not found in the Adjudicator's decision, and found no grounds to interfere with the Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitr....
An arbitrator cannot entertain claims beyond what is specified in the court's order of reference, ensuring jurisdictional limits are maintained.
Arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by acting prematurely and failing to provide a reasoned award, necessitating the setting aside of the invalid award.
The court ruled that it has authority to file an arbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator, even when the designated arbitrator is unwilling to act, per the Indian Arbitration Act.
The jurisdiction of an arbitrator is limited to the claims referred to him by the appointing authority; claims not raised before the Dispute Resolution Committee are not arbitrable.
An arbitration agreement remains valid and enforceable despite procedural limitations on arbitrator appointment, ensuring disputes are addressed effectively.
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
