Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
Vishwa Infrastructures and Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of contract and its termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. claims and counterclaims by the parties. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. determination of responsibilities and legal bases for claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. analysis of contract termination and legal implications. (Para 16 , 20 , 22 , 29) |
| 5. scope of judicial review under section 34 of the act. (Para 28) |
| 6. conclusion restoring the original award with modifications. (Para 48) |
JUDGMENT :
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the learned Sole Arbitrator, i.e., the appellant herein as the claimant and the first respondent herein as the respondent. For better appreciation, it would be necessary to note certain relevant and undisputed facts of the case.
4. Before commencement of work, the claimant submitted a Performance Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.79,36,000/- valid till 31.01.2015, and during the course of execution, the validity of the said Bank Guarantee was extended from time to time till 31.07.2019. During the course of execution of the work, the claimant had submitted Running Account Bills, Seven in number, and out of the same, six of them were proces
The appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
Judicial scrutiny under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited; courts must respect arbitral awards unless proven to violate public policy or statutory obligations, affirming the principle t....
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....
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
The judgment reinforces the principle that courts have limited grounds to interfere with arbitral awards, respecting the finality of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
(1) Appeal against modified arbitral award – Merits of award are only to be gone into, if award is demonstrated to be contrary to public policy of India.(2) Arbitral proceedings are per se not compar....
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
