M. SUNDAR
Nadippisai Pulavar K. P. Ramasamy Co-OP, Sugar Mill' rep. By its Administrator Thalainayar Mayiladuthurai Taluk – Appellant
Versus
Binny Engg. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
[Prayer: Petition filed under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Order XXI Rules 2 and 3 of O.S. Rules of High Court praying to set aside the arbitration award dated 16.04.2012 against the petitioner with a cost of this petition and for further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.]
PREFACE:
Captioned 'Original Petition' (hereinafter 'OP' for the sake of brevity) going by its year of registration (2013) and date of presentation (13.02.2012 to be precise) is clearly a vintage matter owing to time line stipulated in sub-section (6) of Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' and this statute shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity. However on reading the case file, it comes to light that it may not just a vintage matter, it can even be described as ancient, as appointment of Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator was made by this Court more than one and half decades ago i.e., more than 15 years ago and it is actuall
Zonal General Manager, Ircon International Limited Vs. Vinay Heavy Equipments
Voltas Limited Vs. Rolta India Limited
Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited Vs. AMCI (India) Private Limited
Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited Vs. National Highways Authority of India
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.
SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited Vs. Tuff Drilling Pvt. Ltd.
S. Saktivel Vs. Venugopal Pillai and Others
Food Corporation of India Vs. Chandu Construction and another
State of Goa Vs. Praveen Enterprises
Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi
Associated Engg. Co. v. Govt. of A.P.
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engg. Enterprises
Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India
Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath
Champsey Bhara Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd.
The court upheld the arbitral award, emphasizing that the view taken by the arbitral tribunal did not demonstrate patent illegality or shock the conscience of the court, and therefore, the petition w....
The court upheld the Arbitrator's findings that the rescission of the contract was unjust and delays were primarily attributable to the petitioner, affirming the award under Section 34 of the Arbitra....
The Court's power while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is limited, and it cannot undertake an independent assessment on the merits of the Award.
The interpretation of the contract is within the exclusive domain of the learned Arbitrator, and the court would not interfere with such interpretation.
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.