Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Kris Heavy Engineering and Construction SDN BHD, Represented by its Executive Director, Mr.A.P.Perumal – Appellant
Versus
PNHB-LANCO-KHEC-JV – Respondent
ORDER :
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
1. The petitioner was a partner of a joint venture between M/s.Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhad (PNHB), Lanco Infratech Limited (Lanco) and the petitioner (the JV). The JV was formed under a Joint Venture Agreement dated 28.01.2002(the JV Agreement). The JV Agreement was for purposes of bidding for and executing work for the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (the CMWSSB) in relation to the Chennai Water Supply Augmentation Project-I. After the execution of the JV Agreement, the parties modified the status of the petitioner under the JV Agreement by entering into an agreement titled Key Terms to the Supplementary Joint Venture Agreement(Key Terms Agreement). By virtue of the Key Terms Agreement, Package 8 under the work awarded to the JV was sub- contracted to the petitioner. Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the sub-contract and these disputes were referred for arbitration.
2. The petitioner was the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal. By the claim statement, the petitioner raised 34 claims for an aggregate sum of Rs.8,44,26,981/-. The respondent filed a statement of defence along with five counter claims for an aggre
The court clarified that awards in international commercial arbitration can only be challenged on public policy grounds and not for patent illegality, emphasizing the need for adherence to contractua....
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 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.
In international commercial arbitration, challenges to awards are limited to specific legal grounds, and mere dissatisfaction with arbitral decisions does not constitute public policy violations.
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 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
