Back
ANAND PATHAK
Anil Kumar Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Doorsanchar Nigam Ltd. (Bsnl) – Respondent
ORDER
1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioner/contractor being crestfallen by order dated 6.1.2022 passed by Commercial Court, District Gwalior, whereby learned Court below sought original record of arbitrator before considering the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act1) finally.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a proprietor firm owned, managed and controlled by its proprietor Shri Girish Chandra Dubey engaged in construction business as contractor. Respondent-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L.) is engaged as service provider in the field of telecommunication and is instrumentally of such State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
3. It appears from the submissions and record that some contract was given by respondent to petitioner for laying O.F.C. Cable but petitioner could not complete the work within the stipulated time and therefore, contract was cancelled vide order dated 8.7.2003 and placed under blacklist. Matter went into arbitration and vide order dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure P/1) Sole Con
The court established that an arbitral award can be set aside if it contravenes the principles of natural justice and public policy, particularly when crucial evidence is introduced after the conclus....
Challenge to Arbitral Award – Under guise of additional reasons and filling up gaps in reasoning, no award can be remitted to Arbitrator, where there are no findings on contentious issues in award – ....
The court upheld limitations on condonation applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines.
No power has been invested by Parliament in the Court to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings for the limited purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 3....
Arbitral Award – Hearing the parties once again - Permitting Arbitrator to hear the parties de novo will enlarge the mandate of Section 34(4) - 13 years have passed since the Arbitrator last heard th....
The judgment emphasizes the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, highlighting the need for restraint by courts while examini....
The court established that the discretion to remit an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should only be exercised when there are curable defects in the awa....
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....
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
