V. M. VELUMANI, SUNDER MOHAN
Union of India, Represented by the Executive Engineer, Postal Civil Division – Appellant
Versus
George Vincent Ayammpati – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The above appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge dismissing O.P.Nos.742 and 743 of 2007 dated 12.03.2012 filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the said Act.
2. A dispute arose between the appellant and the first respondent with regard to the terms of two contracts entered into between them for the construction of Head Post Office and Post Masters’ Quarters at Postal Staff quarters, Thirukovilur. The dispute was referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the appellant in respect of the contract which formed the subject matter of the award No. MJ/ARB/200/2 which was challenged in O.P.No.742 of 2007. The first respondent made claims under ten heads. The appellant made counter claim under three heads. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties allowed claim numbers 3, 4 and 10 made by the first respondent and counter claim numbers 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant. The Arbitrator rejected all other claims by the parties. In respect of the contract which formed the subject matter of the award no.MJ/ARB/200/1 which was challenged in O.P.No.743 of 2007, the
UHL Power Company Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited
The scope of interference in an award is limited, and an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence.
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
The judgment emphasizes the narrow scope of interference with an arbitral award and the principle of waiver in raising new grounds on appeal.
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 by courts in an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited. Courts will not interfere with an award unless it is patently illegal, against public poli....
(1) While exercising power under Section 34 of A & C Act, arbitral award can only be confirmed or set aside, but not modified.(2) Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal cannot be set aside on the ground t....
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....
Point of Law : Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court. Such award is opposed to public policy and is required to be adjudged void....
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.
The court upheld the principle that arbitral awards should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of public policy or a patent illegality.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.