Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
VLCC Health Care Limited – Appellant
Versus
Veeram Raja – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges confirmation of arbitral award on lease disputes. (Para 2) |
| 2. appellant contests ex-parte proceedings, improper service, perversity. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondents defend service, evidence, limited judicial interference. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. narrow review scope; set aside only rental loss for patent illegality. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. appeal partly allowed; damages and arrears upheld. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 12.10.2022 passed in Arb.O.P.No.209 of 2015 by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, whereby the Arbitral Award dated 21.02.2015 made in Arbitration Case No.5 of 2014 by the learned Sole Arbitrator was confirmed, awarding a sum of Rs.18,89,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Eighty Nine Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 01.02.2012 till the date of payment, and costs.
2. The brief facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:
(i) The appellant, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and engaged in the business of operating fitness centres/institutions and sale of healthcare products,
Limited interference with arbitral awards under S.34/37 of A&C Act; partial set-aside for patent illegality in severable claims.
The arbitrator must address allegations of fraud and collusion affecting the enforceability of a contract; failure to do so results in an award being set aside for patent illegality.
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference and confirming the validity of the Sole Arbitrator's findings regarding the Lease Deed.
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, affirming that the Sole Arbitrator's findings were plausible and did not warrant judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference by the court under Section 34 of the Act, emphasizing that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or reassess fa....
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
The court reaffirmed that an arbitrator's award is not subject to re-evaluation for evidence sufficiency under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the limits of judicial i....
The court affirmed that an arbitral award can only be set aside for patent illegality, emphasizing that lessor maintained obligations under the lease despite lessee's claims. Termination due to non-p....
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
