Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K.PANIGRAHI
National Aluminium Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
J.P. Mishra & Company, Kanti (MP) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.
1. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act”) has been filed against the judgment dated 15.12.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Arbitration Proceeding No.148 of 2011 wherein the learned District Judge has dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act there by confirming the award dated 30.4.2011 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator Justice B.A.Khan.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The factual matrix traces its origin to the tender process initiated by the appellant, National Aluminium Company Ltd. (NALCO), which on 2.6.2009 floated tenders for supply of burnt quick lime for its Damanjodi plant in Koraput district. The respondent, J.P. Mishra & Company, participated in the process and emerged as one of the successful bidders, along with four other suppliers. A formal purchase order was issued on 9.10.2009, stipulating, inter alia, that the lime supplied must conform to specifiedCaO content standards and that sampling and analysis would be conducted at the destination point, i.e., the NALCO laboratory at Damanjodi, whose results wo
The limited scope of appellate review under the Arbitration Act prohibits courts from reassessing arbitral findings unless demonstrable procedural or jurisdictional errors are shown.
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
Judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is significantly limited, focusing solely on jurisdictional errors or procedural irregularities with no reassessment....
The court reaffirmed that judicial intervention in arbitration under Sections 34 and 37 is limited to ensuring no substantial legal errors occurred, emphasizing the importance of respecting the arbit....
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....
Appeal against arbitral award – Courts should not interfere with arbitral award lightly in a casual and a cavalier manner--Mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of contra....
(1) While exercising power under Section 34 of A & C Act, arbitral award can only be confirmed or set aside, but not modified.(2) Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal cannot be set aside on the ground t....
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 upheld the arbitral award, affirming that contractual obligations prevail over departmental instructions, and emphasized the limited scope of appellate review under the Arbitration and Conc....
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
