Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT MADRAS
Mohammed Shaffiq, K.R. Shriram, C.J.
Indo Pacific Software and Entertainment Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.R. SHRIRAM, C.J.
Appellant is engaged in the business of engineering and construction and provides comprehensive technical and allied services for infrastructure development. First respondent is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of elevators and escalators, and maintenance thereon under the collaboration with Kone Corporation, Finland.
2. Appellant was also in the business of constructing and managing entertainment complexes. It needed elevators and escalators in two of its projects – one Wardhaman Nagar Project and the other VIP Road Project. The Wardhaman Nagar Project comprises a commercial multiplex, including Big Bazaar and a multiplex, while the VIP Road Project was another commercial and entertainment complex.
3. Appellant and first respondent had entered into two base agreements – both dated 19.12.2005 – one in respect of supply, erection and installation of one Goods-cum-Passenger Elevator and four Passenger Elevators (totally 5) along with service specifications valued at Rs.70,50,000/- and the other in respect of supply, erection and installation of seven escalators valued at Rs.1.22 Crores. Five elevators and one escalator were to be supplied to
The court established that an arbitrator's award can only be set aside for violating public policy, as contractual stipulations prohibit consequential damages unless explicitly allowed.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
The court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's award on escalation claims, affirming the limited grounds for judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(1) Appeal against modified arbitral award – Merits of award are only to be gone into, if award is demonstrated to be contrary to public policy of India.(2) Arbitral proceedings are per se not compar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not interfere with an arbitral award unless the arbitrator's conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. The court's ....
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 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.
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
