Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,J, SATYEN VAIDYA,ACJ
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
K.C. Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
1. The appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) assailing the judgment dated 07.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Arbitration Case No. 105 of 2021, whereby the petition of the appellant under Section 34 of the Act has been dismissed.
2. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Contractor”) was awarded work of improvement and widening of formation in KM 250/0 to 268/740 on Shimla Wangtoo Section. The scope of awarded work provided for widening of existing road to double lane and construction of retaining walls, breast walls and cross drainage. The award letter was issued on 20.09.1995. The total contract amount was Rs.1,24,23,659/- and the stipulated period for completion of work was two years. The work was started on 29.09.1995 and was completed on 31.03.2001.
3. The contractor raised certain dispute arising out of the contract and invoked arbitration clause. Accordingly, the Arbitrator was appointed.
4. The contractor raised following claims before the Arbitrator:-
| Sr. No. | Description of Claims | Amount claimed. |
| 1. | Claim No.1:- Payment due for the balance amount of es | |
The jurisdiction of courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to specific legal grounds, and mere disagreement with arbitral findings does not suffice for setting aside an awa....
The judgment emphasizes the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, highlighting the need for restraint by courts while examini....
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.
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
The court affirmed that arbitral awards challenging under Sections 34 and 37 are limited in scope, requiring clear evidence of illegality or perversion; otherwise, the Arbitrator's decision stands.
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 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....
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
