Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
K.G.Foundations (P) Limited – Appellant
Versus
Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
P. B. Balaji, J.
This Original Petition has been filed under Sections 34(2)(a)(iv) &34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the final award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 30.12.2019.
2.The petitioner herein in the present Original Petition is the respondent and the respondent in this Original Petition is the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal.
3.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The claimant is in the business of construction for several years. The respondent was intending to construct two multi storied buildings, namely Blocks A and B @ KG Signature City, situated at 200 Feet New Bye-pass Road, Adayalampattu Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. In this connection, the respondent floated a tender for executing of construction of the Civil, RCC and other general builder's work and miscellaneous works such as roads, drains, compound wall gates, U.G. Sump, ramp, STP, etc., in the said project. The claimant was the successful bidder and was awarded the contract, pursuant to which an agreement dated 31.01.2011 was entered into for completion of Block B for a total value of Rs.19,47,49,610.05/- and in respect of Block A, an
The Arbitrator has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from consolidated claims if the parties treated them as a single transaction, and the award is not subject to interference under Section....
Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of perversity or violation of public policy.
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 court affirmed that arbitral awards challenging under Sections 34 and 37 are limited in scope, requiring clear evidence of illegality or perversion; otherwise, the Arbitrator's decision stands.
The court upheld the arbitral award, finding no unreasonable delay or jurisdictional errors, affirming the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence, as claims were not barred by limitation.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial intervention under Section 34 of the A and C Act and the finality of arbitral awards.
The arbitrator cannot re-adjudicate claims once an award is made, and the court upheld the validity of the arbitration awards as justified and within jurisdiction.
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 limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
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
