Sikkim Urja Limited (Formerly: Teesta Urja Limited) Through Authorized Representative Satyan Sood, Executive Director (Project & Contractors) vs Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Sikk) 4

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
BISWANATH SOMADDER, CJ., BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Sikkim Urja Limited (Formerly: Teesta Urja Limited) Through Authorized Representative Satyan Sood, Executive Director (Project & Contractors) – Appellant
Versus
Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anubhav Sinha, Mr. Akshaya Babu V., Mr. Rinzing Dorjee Tamang and Mr. Varun Pradhan, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. R.S. Sravan Kumar and Mr. Sishir Mothay, Advocates, Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ms Allakha, Mr. Pramit Chhetri and Mr. Arun Rai, Advocates.

Table of Content
1. review of arbitration levels under section 34. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background of the contract and arbitration setup. (Para 3 , 4)
3. claims and defenses regarding the cess payment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. observations on arbitration findings and applicable laws. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. enforcement of labor laws and definition of employer. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. fundamental policy of indian law regarding labor laws. (Para 39 , 42)
7. conclusion and costs decision. (Para 44 , 45)

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

This is an appeal preferred under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). The impugned judgment and order dated 14.08.2023 dismissed the petition filed by M/s Teesta Urja Ltd. [now, Sikkim Urja Limited (appellant)] under section 34 refusing to interfere with the arbitral award dated01.10.2019 in favour of the respondents herein.

2. The grounds for interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act are limited. When should a Court interfere under section 34 is clearly defined in the provision and amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various judgments. On examination of the arbitral award, we find that the