Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
B.S. Ranbir and Co. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Arbitral award passed in favour of respondent No.1 on 15.10.2015 was upheld by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 08.12.2023. Objections preferred against the award under Section of 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’) were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have now taken recourse to Section 37 of the Act and have assailed the order passed by the learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala dated08.12.2023 and Arbitral Award dated 15.10.2015, whereunder, claim preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed to the extent indicated therein.
2. The case
2(i) A Contract agreement was executed between the appellants and respondent No.1 for ‘Provision of OTM accommodation for Postal Unit at Palampur, District Kangra’ for an amount of Rs.3,94,96,923.36/-. Stipulated period of completion of work was 18 months with given date of completion as 16.07.2015. The work extended beyond the period of 18 months. Clause No.48 of the Contract Agreement provided mechanism of reimbursement/refund on variation in prices. Respondent No.1 claimed escalation amounting to Rs. 2,25,498.00/- in Running Account Receipt (RAR) da
The court upheld the arbitral award, affirming that contractual obligations prevail over departmental instructions, and emphasized the limited scope of appellate review under the Arbitration and Conc....
The court reaffirmed that judicial intervention in arbitration under Sections 34 and 37 is limited to ensuring no substantial legal errors occurred, emphasizing the importance of respecting the arbit....
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....
Judicial scrutiny under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited; courts must respect arbitral awards unless proven to violate public policy or statutory obligations, affirming the principle t....
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
Under Section 34, courts cannot interfere with arbitral awards based on joint departmental reconciliations and admissions unless patent illegality apparent on award's face; limited to upholding final....
The court confirmed that the scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited, emphasizing the binding nature of arbitration agreements.
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the scope for setting aside an arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 is limited, emphasizing the need for substantial legal grounds and deference to arbi....
The court affirmed that the scope of interference in arbitral awards is limited, emphasizing that awards can only be set aside on specific grounds, including patent illegality or violation of public ....
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
