Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, C.J., RANJAN SHARMA
Himachal Pradesh Road and other Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
C & C Construction Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contract delays led to arbitration on prolongation costs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. award upheld absent arbitrator perversity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. overhead claims need contemporaneous evidence proof. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. no re-appreciation of arbitral evidence. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. section 37 confines interference to patent illegality. (Para 17) |
| 6. head office expenses require witness-verified evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. ca certificates alone insufficient without testimony. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. unproven claims violate public policy. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 9. supported claims immune from interference. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. appeal partly allowed setting aside unproven amounts. (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
Challenge in the present Civil Arbitration Appeal is laid to the judgment dated 05.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2020, titled Himachal Pradesh Road and other Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd vs M/s C & C Construction Ltd. whereby the Award dated 17.08.2019, passed by the three Member Arbitral Tr
Arbitral awards set aside partly for patent illegality where head office overhead claims lack evidentiary support like unverified CA certificates without witness testimony, despite upholding other pr....
Arbitral awards under Section 34 set aside in part for patent illegality where claims lack evidence of loss; sustained for plausible delay findings, scope changes; severability applies to separable p....
The judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is restricted to issues of patent illegality, ensuring that arbitrator's findings are not disturbed unless they fundamenta....
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 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 need for evidence to establish loss of profits and the court's discretion to modify the interest rate as agreed upon by the parties.
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
