Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
COMNR.-CUM-SECY. – Appellant
Versus
SYED MUBARAK – Respondent
Judgment :
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present Appeals have been preferred seeking setting aside of judgment dated 23.9.2013, passed by the Ld. District Judge, Ganjam in ARBP No. 1 of 2005 and judgment dated 16.9.2013 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Ganjam in ARBP No.3 of 2005 whereby, the Ld. District Judge has dismissed both the appeals.
2. Since both appeals arise out of arbitral awards relating to contracts executed by the same parties under the Baghua Irrigation Project and involve common questions concerning the scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment..
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. In ARBA 12 of 2014
a. In this appeal, the dispute arises out of Agreement No.1 NCB/2001–2002 executed on 27.7.2001 between the Department of Water Resources, Government of Odisha and the respondent, a Super Class Contractor, for excavation and construction of structures of minors and sub-minors off-taking from Baghua Right Branch Canal from RD 13.15 km to 23.425 km and Baghua Right Distributary from RD 23.425 km to about 30.375 km, described as Package No.9. The con
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 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....
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 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....
The court affirmed that arbitral awards challenging under Sections 34 and 37 are limited in scope, requiring clear evidence of illegality or perversion; otherwise, the Arbitrator's decision stands.
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....
The scope of judicial interference under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited; courts cannot review merits unless there is a clear violation of public policy or jurisdiction.
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
