Back
ARUN BHANSALI, VIKAS BUDHWAR
Gaursons Promoters P. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Aakash Engineers And Contractors – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Vikas Budhwar, J.)
1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) against the order dated 5.7.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Arbitration Case No.110 of 2018 (Gaursons Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Akash Engineers and Contractors) whereby the application preferred by the appellant-objector under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the award dated 15.6.2018 of the Sole Arbitrator was rejected.
2. The case projected by the claimant-respondent before the sole Arbitrator is that it claims to be a sole proprietorship firm by the name and style of Akash Engineers and Contractors having its office at L-303, Rail Vihar, Alpha-Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. According to the claimant-respondent the appellant-objector, Gaursons Promoters Pvt. Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the constructions of commercial and residential project in an around the National Capital Region ( In short N.C.R.) approached the claimant-respondent sometime in the year 2011-12 with relation to the advertised projects namely G.E.C. Capital-10 at G
The court upheld the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, focusing on patent illegality and burden of proof established through admiss....
The court confirmed the validity of the Arbitrator's findings regarding excess work claims and the correct application of interest, highlighting that overlapping interest claims were erroneous.
The court affirmed that arbitral awards challenging under Sections 34 and 37 are limited in scope, requiring clear evidence of illegality or perversion; otherwise, the Arbitrator's decision stands.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
The court affirmed that an entity can claim compensation for work performed under a non-finalized contract if the work was conducted at the direction of another party, underscoring the principle of q....
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
