Back
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, JAYANT BANERJI
Bundelkhand University Jhansi – Appellant
Versus
Woodfun – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act, 1996') challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2021 passed by the Commercial Court, Jhansi in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 3 of 2017 under Section 34 of the Act, 1996.
2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant-herein invited tenders for the work of Modernization, Interior, Electrical and other allied work at Auditorium, Convention Centre and at Conference Room in the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. The contract was awarded to the respondent-claimant and an agreement dated 27.05.2004 was entered into between the parties. The agreement provides for additional work also. As per agreement, the schedule of rates were made part of the agreement. Copy of agreement has been appended as Annexure-1 to the appeal. The agreement contains an arbitration clause. Since, despite notice of the claimant-respondent, the appellant-University could not appoint any Arbitrator, therefore, the claimant filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 and the Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court. Before the Arbitrator, the claimant filed his claim and
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competency of the arbitrator and the proper notice in the arbitration proceedings are crucial for the validity of the arbitration award.
The Ld. Arbitrator's jurisdiction, the applicability of Clause 16(2) of the Agreement, and the sufficiency of reasons provided in the award were the main legal points established in the judgment.
Appointment of arbitrator by designation is permissible. Arbitration clauses in government contracts providing that an employee of the department will be the sole arbitrator are neither void nor unen....
The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The appointment of a sole arbitrator deviated from the statutory requirements and terms of the arbitration agreement, making proceedings invalid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an arbitrator must be in accordance with the law, and if found to be invalid, the court has the jurisdiction to set it asid....
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
