Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
HS Treohan and sons – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum- Commercial Court, Chandigarh whereby the petition filed by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") has been dismissed and he has further prayed for setting aside the award dated 26.05.2015.
2. Facts of the case are that the contract agreement No.CE(AF) NGP/CHD-38/2006-07 was executed between the Union of India and M/s Treohan and sons for construction of the Bulk Shed for storing Aero Engine, Bulky items and allied services at Air Force Station Chandigarh. The lump sum contract amount was agreed to be sum of Rs.2,91,99,996.15/-. According to the contract, the work was to commence on 21.12.2006 and the same was to be completed on 20.12.2007. The respondent
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is strict and non-extendable, emphasizing the need for timely recourse to mai....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period for challenging an award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is strict and cannot be extended be....
The court affirmed that claims in arbitration must be asserted within the limitation period, and undue delays in invoking arbitration can render claims invalid.
The period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period, as the Act is a self-contained special law and t....
The judgment emphasizes the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, highlighting the need for restraint by courts while examini....
The court emphasized the absolute nature of the time limit prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, highlighting the legislative intent to minimize the supervisor....
Substantial delay in pronouncing an arbitral award undermines justice and can be grounds for setting aside the award under public policy considerations.
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
Listen Article