Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J., M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ.
State Highways Authority of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. This Commercial Appeal is preferred under Section 13 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 challenging the judgment dt. 16.03.2024 of Additional Judicial Commissioner-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi (for short ‘the Commercial Court’) passed in Commercial Arbitration Case No. 04/2022.
2. By the said judgment the Commercial Court has upheld the Award dt. 14.12.2021 of the Arbitral Tribunal and dismissed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’) filed before the said Court by the appellant/applicant/State Highway Authority of Jharkhand.
3. Admittedly, the appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent in collaboration with another for providing consultation services relating to the Second Jharkhand State Road Project (ABD Funded). This agreement called the ‘Time-Based Contract Agreement’ was initiated on 02.11.2016 and the contract stipulated a revised price of US$ 29,58,300.00 plus Indian Rs.30,60,60,750.00 for the execution, completion of works, and rectification of defects, inclusive of provisional sum and contingencies but exclusive of local indirect taxe
The court emphasized that a termination of contract deemed improper by an arbitral tribunal cannot be set aside without substantial justification, requiring detailed reasoning from a reviewing court.
The court emphasized that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for a full appeal, restricting re-evaluation of evidence and requiring clear grounds for setting aside ....
The court emphasized the necessity of thorough evidence evaluation in arbitration, allowing for remand due to prior oversights, reaffirming principles against unjust outcomes in legal proceedings.
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 scope of interference with an arbitral award is confined to the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and proper reasons must be provided in the judgme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not interfere with an arbitral award unless the arbitrator's conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. The court's ....
The court affirmed that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it cannot reassess the merits of an arbitral award unless it violates public policy or is patently illegal.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contract terms, breach of contract, and the limited scope of interference with the arbitrator's award based on the violation ....
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
