Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, NUPUR BHATI
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Leeladhar Devkinandan – Respondent
ORDER :
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan through its Executive Engineer to challenge the decision of the Commercial Court passed in Civil Misc. Case No.04/2023 by which the challenge laid to the Arbitral award dated 27th October 2009 has been dismissed.
2. Pursuant to the Agreement No.61/1995-96 executed between the parties for construction of the Police-line at Hanumangarh Jn., the subject work was allotted to M/s. Lila Dhar Devki Nandan (in short, claimant). As per the Agreement, the total contract value was for Rs.2,88,04,833/- and the work under the Agreement was to be completed within two years from issue of the work order no.8024 on 21st March 1996. There were certain disputes that arose between the parties regarding admissibility of escalation as per the stipulation under Clause 45 of the Agreement which could not be resolved and the matter finally came to the High Court in S.B. Micellaneous Arbitration Application No.45/2002 seeking appointment of Arbitrator. By an order dated 21st August 2003, the application filed by the claimant was allowed and the Arbitral Tribunal entered the reference on 24th February
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.
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
A deleted contractual clause cannot be automatically revived upon extension of the contract; explicit agreement is required for revival.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
An arbitrator cannot exceed jurisdiction by awarding claims not supported by written approval as mandated by the contract, rendering the award illegal.
An arbitrator cannot exceed contractual terms; applying external recommendation outside the agreed terms constitutes a jurisdictional error and is subject to judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 ....
The specified authority's decision on quantification of compensation for delay is final, but the responsibility for the delay is subject to arbitration. The court also emphasized the importance of ev....
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
