Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Corporation of Chennai, rep. By S. E. Bridges Department – Appellant
Versus
National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of construction contract and arbitration (Para 3 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 2. arguments regarding arbitration tribunal's findings (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court's consideration of the arbitration proceedings and findings (Para 9 , 21 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 32) |
| 4. legal standards applied regarding contract and arbitration (Para 22 , 23 , 30) |
ORDER :
The Corporation of Chennai has assailed the award dated 31.5.2012 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
3. The facts leading to filing of the above petition are as follows:
(ii) The work was awarded at a contract price of Rs.10,69,43,275/- with the construction period of 18 months. It was also agreed between the parties that the contract was meant to be an item rate contract with a bill of quantity.
(iv) Due to change in the political scenario, the entire work came to a grinding halt from August 2001 to October 2006 since a Commission of Inquiry was appointed. Later, an effort was made to resume the project and hence, a supplementary agreement dated 10.11.2006 was entered into by both parties. By virtue of this supplementary agreement, the cost was increased and a fresh timeline was also fixed f
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.
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the limited grounds for challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 of the A&C Act, emphasizing the principles of public policy and fundamental In....
The non-breaching party is entitled to damages that place them in a position as if the contract had been performed, with the awarded loss of profits upheld based on reasonable calculations.
The court affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, allowing for setting aside awards only on grounds of patent illegality or if the award is perv....
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
The arbitral tribunal's decision to deny claims for damages due to lack of supporting evidence is valid under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing minimal judicial interfer....
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
