Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN
Rungta Projects Ltd., through its duly authorized representative Sri Kamal Kishore Prasad, son of Sri Lala Hari Kishore Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
1. This Commercial Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dt. 29.09.2020 passed in Original Suit No.50 of 2018 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award dt. 30.08.2014 of the learned Arbitrator.
2. The case was initially filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Cum Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, as Misc. Case No.30 of 2014 and it was then transferred to the Commercial Court at Dhanbad through an Order No.80 of 2018 dt. 26.03.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh.
Background facts
3. The respondent had floated an NIT dt. 02.08.1996 with respect to work of transportation of coal and washery products from various projects/mines/units of Kuju and Hazaribagh Area of the respondent for two years.
4. The contract was awarded to the appellant and agreements were executed and later Work Orders were also issued.
5. The contract expired on 31.10.1999, after which, the respondent issued a fresh tender on 10.09.1999 for a fresh period of two years.
6. The date of opening of the fresh tender was 14.10.1999. In
Waiver principles emphasize binding effects of authorized communications, limiting claims to amended terms unless formally contested, as upheld in arbitration contexts.
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 ....
Point of Law; If the Appellate Court for the first time goes into the grounds urged and gives its own findings, perhaps one of the parties will be deprived of a right of statutory appeal provided in ....
The court upheld the arbitral award, affirming that contractual obligations prevail over departmental instructions, and emphasized the limited scope of appellate review under the Arbitration and Conc....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
Interim awards may be issued by arbitral tribunals, and reliance on evaluation reports constitutes admissible evidence binding on parties, restricting challenges based on liability admissions.
The judicial intervention in arbitration awards is limited to instances of patent illegality or jurisdictional errors, maintaining the sanctity of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mec....
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
