Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Tenzin Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges arbitral award under section 34. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner alleges patent illegality; respondent cites admissions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. section 34 limits interference to patent illegality only. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. departmental admissions validate award claims; no perversity. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. petition dismissed; arbitral award upheld. (Para 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. Instant petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act (herein after referred to as the “Act”), lays challenge to award dated 29.5.2023, passed by the learned Arbitrator, awarding therein sum of Rs. 4,97,49,382/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.4.2022, till the date of payment.
2. Explicitly, facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, as emerge from pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that work of construction of Civil Hospital at Rohru (Sh: C/O Building Portion including WS and SI, rain water harvesting tank and septic tank) came to be awarded to the respondent/claimant vide letter dated 5.10.2016 a
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 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 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....
Section 31(7)(a) of Act deals with grant of pre-award interest.
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 court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
Limited intervention of the Courts in arbitral proceedings is intended by the legislature. An Arbitral Award may only be set aside if it is patently illegal, against the public policy of India, based....
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
