Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
TRF Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shiva Shakti Engineering Construction through its Managing Director – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of commercial appeal under the arbitration act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims raised by the claimant regarding contract performance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arbitrator's adjudication of claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. limitations on arbitral awards regarding scope of reference. (Para 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion regarding appeals and setting aside specific parts of the award. (Para 25) |
ORDER :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This Commercial Appeal has been filed by the TRF Limited (in short, Company) under section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 to challenge the order passed in Arbitration Case No.4 of 2019 passed by the Commercial Court, East Singhbhum, at Jamshedpur.
2. This Commercial Appeal was filed on 10th June 2020 and taken up for hearing on 30th September 2020, when notice was directed to be issued to Shiva Shakti Engineering Construction (in short, claimant). The proceedings in this appeal indicate that on the request of the Company it was granted permission to serve dasti summons and an affidavit affirming service of dasti summons upon the claimant has been filed. This appeal was taken up on 27th June 2023 but on that day also no one appeared for t
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 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....
Judicial intervention in arbitration is limited, focusing on procedural irregularities rather than merit assessments.
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 upheld the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, focusing on patent illegality and burden of proof established through admiss....
The scope of interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is fairly limited and narrow. The Courts shall not sit in an appeal while adjudicating ....
The court confirmed the validity of the Arbitrator's findings regarding excess work claims and the correct application of interest, highlighting that overlapping interest claims were erroneous.
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
