Back
M. DURAISWAMY, SUNDER MOHAN
Nuclear Fuel Complex Government of India, Deparment of Atomic Energy, Tuticorin – Appellant
Versus
URC Constructions Private Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Clause XV of Madras High Court Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 (1) (c) of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 10.01.2020 in O.P.No.266 of 2016 and consequently set aside the award dated 01.11.2015.)
Sunder Mohan, J.
1. The above Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the O.P.No.266 of 2016, dated 10.01.2020 filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the said Act.
2. A dispute arose between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent with regard to the terms of the contract entered into between them for the work described as Civil Structure and allied works for construction of plants, buildings, etc., for New Zirconium Oxide & Sponge in the year 2005 at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. The dispute was referred to the learned Arbitrator appointed by the Appellant under Clause 25 of the said contract. The Arbitrator, after conducting several hearings over a period of six years, passed an Award allowing two sub claims in cla
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 appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
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 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 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....
The court confirmed that the scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited, emphasizing the binding nature of arbitration agreements.
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 jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with....
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
