Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CJ, SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Instapower Limited. – Appellant
Versus
Gujrat State Electricity Corporation Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ.
1. This Appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge (Commercial), Dehradun, in Arbitration Case No. 160/2016, whereby the petition filed by respondent no. 1 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘respondent-company’), under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was allowed, and the Arbitral Award dated 29.07.2016, rendered by the respondent no. 2-Uttarakhand State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Dehradun (for short ‘the Facilitation Council’), was set-aside.
2. The facts, giving rise to the present proceedings, in brief, are that the respondent-company invited tender for supply of 5350 numbers of 28 watt Retrofit Type Energy Efficient Tubelights (T5) for use at its Thermal Power Stations. Pursuant thereto, the bid of the appellant came to be accepted, and a Purchase Order was issued on 10.06.2008, which stipulated that the goods would be supplied within four months of the order. Clause 11 provided that delivery of goods would be made, after get
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
The interpretation of contractual clauses by an Arbitrator cannot be interfered with unless it is unreasonable or against settled legal principles.
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, affirming that timelines and knowledge of the transaction were not claimed by the petitioner regarding delayed delivery impact.
The court affirmed that limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for re-evaluation of arbitration awards unless they are demonstrably perverse, illegal, or devoi....
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a limited window of challenge to an arbitral award, and a violation of a statute, not tied to public policy or public interest, cannot serv....
The court can set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 if it violates substantive law, contract terms, or public policy, especially when procedural requirements aren't met or if the award is pate....
The court affirmed that arbitral awards may only be set aside under specific grounds stated in Section 34, emphasizing judicial restraint from reevaluating evidence or merits beyond legal provisions.
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
