HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
State of Sikkim and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Chhabil Dass Agarwal – Respondent
Judgment :
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
This is an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act).
2. The facts pertinent for disposal of the present appeal can be briefly summarised as under:
(i) The appellants and Chhabil Dass Agarwal (the respondent) had entered into a contract agreement dated 24.02.2004 for construction of 2x5MVA, 66/11KV substation with LILO from Phodong 66KV S/S and Meyong- C-Power House at Mangan. The work had to be completed within four months but due to several factors, it could be done only on 18.02.2008. The work value was initially for Rs.7,79,33,000. Admittedly, on 28.04.2004 and 09.11.2004 mobilization advances for Rs.1,00,00,000/- and Rs. 94,83,250/- respectively, were paid to the respondent. Although, the work was completed on 18.02.2008, the respondent did not receive full and final payment on the said date. According to the respondent, on 16.02.2006, he received Rs.2,76,44,048/- for civil works. Thereafter, for electrical works, he received Rs.1,76,00,000/- on 14.10.2011 and Rs.91,00,000/- on 02.11.2011. According to the respondent, on 31.03.2017 he received final payment of Rs.3,77,67,688/- after entering into
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....
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
The court confirmed that the scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited, emphasizing the binding nature of arbitration agreements.
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 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 ....
The court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's award on escalation claims, affirming the limited grounds for judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court affirmed that the scope of interference in arbitral awards is limited, emphasizing that awards can only be set aside on specific grounds, including patent illegality or violation of public ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.