Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
JASPREET SINGH, ARUN BHANSALI
Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow through Director – Appellant
Versus
Trishul Enterprises through Partner Mr. Ashish Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Commercial Court No.1, Lucknow in Arbitration Case No.119 of 2020 ( Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Lko. vs. M/s Trishul Enterprises ) whereby a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) was dismissed, as a consequence, the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 20.08.2020 has been upheld.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant appeal, it will be appropriate to notice relevant facts leading upto this appeal.
3. An agreement was made between the appellant and the respondent bearing No.1 of 2008-2009, dated 16.04.2008 for the purposes of maintenance of the landscape in the campus of Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the SGPGI). The agreement was for a period of three years and it could be extended till the finalization of a new tender process or three months which ever was earlier. The said agreement, inter alia, contained an arbitration clause.
4. The respondent initially filed Writ Petition No.10358 (M/B
The court emphasized that an arbitrator's jurisdiction is confined to claims explicitly referred to in the arbitration clause; claims arising from separate contracts cannot be entertained.
An arbitration agreement can be inferred from the parties' conduct and correspondence, and failure to raise jurisdictional objections in a timely manner results in waiver of those rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Arbitrator's decisions must be in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and cannot be patently illegal or against the most basic noti....
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 appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
The court held that the tribunal's award of refund and risk and cost compensation was justified, but the risk and cost amount should be modified to reflect the corrected value of work done.
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.
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
