Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Rep.by its Authorised Signatory Mr.R.Swaminathan – Appellant
Versus
Purvankara Projects Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of the court in arbitration cases. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the dispute leading to arbitration. (Para 10 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. summary of party arguments. (Para 13 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. scope of review for arbitral awards. (Para 36 , 38 , 40) |
ORDER :
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 04.8.2018, as amended on 10.8.2018 and 10.9.2018, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (for short, the Act).
3. The genesis of this case and the rough weather it faced even before the above petition was numbered have been succinctly captured in the order passed on 24.2.2022 and it reads as hereunder:
2. There is a sole claimant company and lone respondent company before AT. From hereon, for convenience, lone claimant before AT i.e., claimant company shall be referred to 'Puravankara' and lone respondent i.e., lone respondent company before AT shall be referred to as 'Simplex'.
4. Puravankara floated a tender dated 10.01.2006 for pile foundation qua a residential project which is construction of a superstructure which is to go by the name Purva Grand Bay, Marine Drive, Cochin. Simplex resp
Arbitral tribunal findings confirmed that both parties shared liability due to contributory negligence, emphasizing the significance of compliance with contract obligations and arbitration procedures....
The scope of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not extend to calling upon the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the proceedings to re-appreciate the evidence and re-adjudicat....
The court upheld the arbitral award barring the idling costs due to lack of proof, affirming the necessity for evidential support in claims made under arbitration.
The scope of interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is fairly limited and narrow. The Courts shall not sit in an appeal while adjudicating ....
Excessive and unexplained delay in arbitral proceedings vitiates the award, impacting fairness and leading to its annulment under public policy and patent illegality.
The court upheld the arbitral tribunal's authority to decide disputes not found in the Adjudicator's decision, and found no grounds to interfere with the Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitr....
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
