Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Marg Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jyoti Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition and respondent's claims against the petitioner. (Para 4 , 14 , 19) |
| 2. court's affirmation of the arbitrator’s findings on liability and agreement interpretation. (Para 6 , 37) |
| 3. final dismissal of the petition; the ruling upholding the arbitral award. (Para 7 , 52) |
| 4. assessment of procedural adherence during arbitration and evidence examination. (Para 39 , 48) |
ORDER :
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) against the award dated 14.4.2022 passed by the learned Arbitrator.
3. The facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:
(ii) The petitioner was the successful bidder and the BECL issued a letter of award dated 20.7.2011 for the aforementioned works for a total lump sum value of Rs.237,58,22,999/-. A contract was executed between the BECL and the petitioner.
(iv) On receipt of the advance bank guarantee, the petitioner released an advance payment of Rs.4.98 Crores on 13.12.2011 through a letter of credit and thereafter, the respondent placed orders for manufacturing and procurement of necessary equipment and spares. The parties entered into a co
The tripartite agreement did not extinguish the liability of the petitioner, and the claims brought by the respondent were not barred by limitation.
Arbitral awards are not subject to interference unless they exhibit patent illegality; the interpretation of contractual obligations falls within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Point of Law : Arbitral Tribunal had erred in concluding that the petitioner had abandoned the works, is also unpersuasive. The finding that the petitioner had abandoned the works is a finding of fac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
![SB Adithya Power Projects Pvt Ltd, Rep. by its Director, Sheik Bareed VS Siemens Gamesa Renewable Pvt. Ltd, [Previously known as Gamesa Renewable Pvt. Ltd and before that known as Gamesa Wind Turbines Ltd], Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2192](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_2.png)
The Arbitrator has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from consolidated claims if the parties treated them as a single transaction, and the award is not subject to interference under Section....
An arbitral award must be reasoned per Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; failure to provide reasons for rejecting claims renders the award arbitrary and subject to being set asid....
Non-payment of certified dues does not justify contract suspension if delays are caused by the contractor, constituting a fundamental breach justifying termination.
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
