Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
State of Rajasthan, Through the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department – Appellant
Versus
Leeladhar Devkinandan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. This Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1996’) read with Sections 5 & 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :
Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of appellant.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.Manish Patel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Mehali Mehta, appearing on behalf of the appellant-State are that the respondent was awarded a contract as per Agreement no.4 in the year 1995-96 vide work order no. 1670 dated 16.06.1995 pertaining to “Renewal with 20 MM on PMC on Hanumangarh – Rawatsar Pallu Road and Thalarka-Munda Road by Paver Finisher”; the work order as awarded was to the tune of
A deleted contractual clause cannot be automatically revived upon extension of the contract; explicit agreement is required for revival.
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....
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 appellate jurisdiction under section 37 is limited to the grounds prescribed under section 34. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views for that of the arbitrator, provided ....
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....
Point of Law : None of the objections as raised, fell within the purview of Section 34 of the Act and therefore, the award impugned did not deserve any interference.
The Court's power while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is limited, and it cannot undertake an independent assessment on the merits of the Award.
The enforceability of limitation clauses in contracts is valid, and parties are bound by prior agreements regarding damage claims, reinforcing their contractual obligations.
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
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
