Back
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
HON’BLE MR. BISWANATH SOMADDER, CJ, HON’BLE MR. BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J
Union of India, Represented by Chief Engineer, Project Swastik, C/O 99 A.P.O., Pin – 931717. – Appellant
Versus
M/s M.K. Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Represented by Director Smt. Lalita Kandoi, Resident of 4 Agrasen Road, Siliguri, West Bengal, PIN – 734005. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of arbitration case (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's analysis of arbitration law limits (Para 2 , 3 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 27) |
| 3. arguments regarding timeliness of the arbitral award (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. ratio on procedural applicability and timelines (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. final conclusion upholding the arbitral award (Para 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
The process of arbitration is initiated on a consensus of the parties when they desire to resolve their disputes arising out of the agreement through the process of arbitration instead of following the normal process of courts. The effort of the legislature in enacting the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Arbitration Act) is to ensure that this process is fair, efficient and capable of meeting the needs of the specific arbitration and to minimise the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process. It is precisely for this reason that section 19 provides that the arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It further provides that the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed
The scope for judicial intervention in arbitral awards is strictly limited to clear violations of public policy or patent illegality; mere procedural errors or delays do not warrant the award's setti....
Arbitration awards must comply with current procedural amendments; pandemic delays affecting timeliness must be considered.
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....
Substantial delay in pronouncing an arbitral award undermines justice and can be grounds for setting aside the award under public policy considerations.
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....
(1) Extension of mandate of Arbitrator(s) – Application under Section 29A(5) for extension of mandate of Arbitrator is maintainable even after expiry of time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even af....
(1) Arbitral award – Application for extension of time period for passing arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable even a....
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
Arbitral award – In a domestic arbitration, there is mandatory period of twelve months for Arbitrator to render arbitral award – In contrast, period of twelve months would not be mandatory for an int....
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
