Back
GURVINDER SINGH GILL
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Poddar Industrial Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - The appellants/State of Haryana assail judgment dated 24.03.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed on behalf of the appellants challenging award dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Arbitrator, has been dismissed.
2. The appellants/State of Haryana had invited tenders for the supply of 'A.C. Pressure Pipes with A.C. Couplings' and the bid made by respondent No.1 was accepted and consequently, a supply order dated 07.01.1999 was placed by the appellants with respondent No.1 for supplying 'Class-15, ISI marked, as per IS No.1592-1989 including upto date amendment with A.C. couplings manufactured through Class 15 A.C. Pressure Pipes cut into pieces of suitable lengths and machined for grooves accurately to seat a set of three rubber rings, one space, O-ring AC Pressure Pipes and two V-Rings Rubber Rings being anti termite'. The specifications and rates approved for the said articles are as follows:
(i) | 80 mm A.C. Pressure Pipes 92307 Mts. @ 67/- P.M. |
(ii) | 100 mm A.C. Pressure Pipes 70000 Mts. @ 93.50 P.M. |
3. Admittedly, t
The interpretation of contractual clauses by an Arbitrator cannot be interfered with unless it is unreasonable or against settled legal principles.
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
The court affirmed that limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for re-evaluation of arbitration awards unless they are demonstrably perverse, illegal, or devoi....
The court affirmed that arbitral awards may only be set aside under specific grounds stated in Section 34, emphasizing judicial restraint from reevaluating evidence or merits beyond legal provisions.
The court clarified the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and emphasized the importance of timely goods delivery in contractual obligations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not interfere with an arbitral award unless the arbitrator's conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. The court's ....
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
