SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 431

R. SAKTHIVEL, R. SUBRAMANIAN
Nellai Concrete Products & Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :E. Manoharan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P.T. Ramkumar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subramanian, J.

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 in OP. No.1022 of 2017.)

1. Challenge in this Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996, in and by which, the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the Arbitrator with reference to the interest portion alone.

2. The brief facts that led to the challenge to the award are as follows:

    The appellant was awarded a contract for supply of 100 sets of Concrete Sleepers to the Railways vide agreement dated 10.09.2013. Certain disputes arose in the performance of the contract which led to the appellant making a request for appointment of an Arbitrator on 23.01.2014. Subsequently on 29.05.2014, the railways terminated the contract and forfeited the security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Upon being moved under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in OP No.14 of 2015, this court appointed a Former Judge of this Court as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator initiated th

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                Judicial Analysis

                Union of India VS Concrete Products & Const. Co. - 2014 2 Supreme 395: Treatment unclear. The provided text describes a legal principle interpreting Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with phrases like "categorically clarifies" indicating a definitive statement, but contains no keywords or phrases (e.g., "overruled," "reversed," "followed," "distinguished") indicating subsequent judicial treatment by other decisions.

                Union of India VS Manraj Enterprises - 2021 8 Supreme 162: Treatment unclear. The provided text states legal holdings, including "(2) There cannot be estoppel against law," but contains no keywords or phrases indicating how this case has been treated in subsequent decisions.

                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                whatsapp-icon Back to top