Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
ARUN MONGA, SUNIL BENIWAL
Jai Narayan Vyas University – Appellant
Versus
Sawai Engineers – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Assailed herein is a judgment and order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Commercial Court, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the petition filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, “1996 Act”) was dismissed, and the Arbitral Award dated 31.12.2021 was upheld.
2. The dispute originates from a work order dated 22.09.2008 between the parties for construction of a Guest House of Academic Staff for a total work order of Rs.71,57,743/-. The work was to be completed within ten months, i.e., by 05.08.2009. Subsequently, an additional work order dated 18.09.2010 worth Rs.25 lakhs was issued for completion of the remaining work, extending the timeline up to 27.09.2010 without imposing any penalty.
2.1 However, due to lack of funds the University was unable to clear the bills. Consequently, the respondent stopped the work. The respondent also sent various communications to clear the outstanding dues. The matter was placed before the University’s Building Committee and Syndicate, wherein it was decided to pay the respondent for the work executed. The respondent was asked to submit his final bills. The respondent submitted final bills,
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
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....
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.
The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Section 34 and 37 of the Act, 1996, and the need for valid permissible grounds for challenging an arbitral award.
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
