Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, LAPITA BANERJI
OMML-SPML (JV) through Sh. Deepak Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
NHPC Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
1. In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated December 16, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad in CIS No. ARB-63-2020. The learned Additional District Judge relied on the decision reported in 2009 (5) SCC 142 Kwality Mfg. Corpn. Vs. Central Warehousing Corpn. to come to the finding that the Arbitral Tribunal dated 29.02.2020 by way of majority award took a plausible view which did not merit any interference. The majority award being neither against the public policy of India nor being vitiated by patent illegality or error appearing on the face of the award, on the ground of erroneous application of law and re-appreciation of the evidence, whether oral or documentary, was the reason the award was not interfered with. The relevant portion relied on by the learned Additional District Judge in Central Warehousing Corpn. (supra) is reproduced herein below:-
The court affirmed that an arbitrator's award is final unless proven arbitrary or against public policy, emphasizing the necessity of rectifying procedural defects in claims.
The scope of enquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is restricted to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement. The burden lies on the party resis....
The arbitration agreement's validity is independent of stamp duty on the substantive contract, and courts have limited grounds for interfering with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration....
The court ruled that partnerships cannot be dissolved without proper evidence and consent, emphasizing the need for independent arbitration for distinct entities.
A non-signatory party could be subjected to arbitration provided these transactions were with group of companies and there was a clear intention of the parties to bind both, the signatory as well as ....
The arbitration agreement's validity is independent of stamp duty on the substantive contract, and courts have limited grounds for interfering with arbitral awards.
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a limited window of challenge to an arbitral award, and a violation of a statute, not tied to public policy or public interest, cannot serv....
The arbitration agreement's validity is independent of stamp duty issues, and courts have limited grounds for interfering with arbitral awards.
Point of Law- The Arbitration Act itself gives various procedures and forums to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator. The framework clearly portrays an intention to address most of the issues w....
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
