Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
I.T.Expressway Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual delays and extensions discussed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding breach of contract presented. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on contract performance. (Para 8 , 12 , 24) |
| 4. fundamental breach definitions and implications. (Para 14 , 20 , 36) |
| 5. ruling on appeal dismissal. (Para 38 , 39) |
ORDER :
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside the award dated 25.7.2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal to the extent it dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner, allow the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal and dismiss the counter claim filed by the first respondent and for costs.
2. Heard both.
3. The facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:
(i) The first respondent awarded a work of construction and maintenance of service ducts on IT Corridor and improvement and maintenance of East Coast Road (ECR) Link Road to the petitioner through a letter of intent (LoI) dated 29.9.2005. The parties formally entered into an agreement on 12.10.2005. The agreement originally covered two components of work namel
Non-payment of certified dues does not justify contract suspension if delays are caused by the contractor, constituting a fundamental breach justifying termination.
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.
Court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's decision based on the principle that interference is limited to cases of perversity, with findings deemed a plausible view of the evidence.
The Arbitral Tribunal has considerable discretion in evaluating evidence and interpreting contract clauses, and its decision cannot be interfered with unless found to be patently illegal or in confli....
The Arbitral Tribunal's decision falls within its jurisdiction and does not amount to patent illegality, as it was based on a plausible interpretation of the exclusionary clause in the contracts and ....
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 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.
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
