Back
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Public Works Department Raj. – Appellant
Versus
Bhawan Va Path Nirman – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been submitted by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') against the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the Court below') in Case No.501/2009 whereby the objections filed by the appellant were dismissed and award dated 26.02.1998 passed by the Sole Arbitrator was upheld.
2. Earlier this appeal was dismissed in the absence of counsel for the appellant vide order dated 11.01.2012 on the ground of limitation as the appeal was barred by limitation and the application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also dismissed.
3. Against the order dated 11.01.2012, the appellant submitted Civil Misc. Appeal No.2/2014 (SLP (civil) No.19790 of 2012) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 02.01.2014 and the order dated 11.01.2012 passed by this Court was quashed and set aside and the matter was restored with a direction to decide the appeal expeditiously and preferably within three months.
4. It is noted that after remand of the matter, this case was li
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the importance of interpreting the contract a....
A deleted contractual clause cannot be automatically revived upon extension of the contract; explicit agreement is required for revival.
The courts have a limited scope of interference under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, and the Arbitral Tribunal's detailed consideration of evidence and claims is final.
The court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's award on escalation claims, affirming the limited grounds for judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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....
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.
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
