Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
KRK Education Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee Mr. K.R. Ilanghovan – Appellant
Versus
Aintiram Developers (P) Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual backdrop leading to arbitration (Para 4 , 10) |
| 2. arguments concerning contractual claims and defenses (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. court's analysis on construction disputes (Para 12 , 30 , 38) |
| 4. legal standards for severable arbitration awards (Para 33 , 49) |
| 5. final judicial order and disposition of parties (Para 51 , 52) |
ORDER :
Both the claimant and the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal have filed the above petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (for short, the Act) challenging the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 06.2.2020.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be assigned the same rank as was assigned before the Arbitral Tribunal.
(i) The claimant is a public charitable trust to promote and run educational institutions in all faculties. They approached the respondent with a request to undertake construction works of a college and the scope of work was for construction of a building and interior contract. The respondent also introduced two other potential contractors to complete the work.
(iii) When the final bill namely bill No.8 was raised and submitted by the respondent, the same was appr
The court upheld that inaccurate findings in an arbitration award necessitate judicial interference, allowing for the severance of valid and invalid portions of the award.
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 affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards unless stark violations of public policy or procedural....
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.
Point of law: Arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act.
An arbitral award may be set aside if the adjudicator fails to provide intelligible reasoning, resulting in findings that are contradictory and lacking foundation.
The scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited to reasons of law and pertains to the arbitral tribunal's adherence to the contract terms and evidence presented.
The Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider claim amounts and reject specific claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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
