Back
INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M. P. Khaitan, Contractor – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act hereunder) against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the District Commercial Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) 03 of 2020.
2. The factual context of the case is as under:
Appellant, M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. (EPIL for short) (a Government of India Enterprise) signed an agreement in the form of MOU with the Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura on 15.11.2007 for construction of the College of Agriculture at Lembucherra. Appellant split up the entire project into 3 packages for suitably executing the work and floated Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) for construction of the college building at Lembucherra which was in package-1. The NIT was so published on 06.02.2008. Respondent, M/s. M.P Khaitan, a registered contractor participated in the tender process along with other contractors and submitted its tender. The tender submitted by the claimant-respondent M/s. M.P. Khaitan having stood the lowest, the General Manager, EPIL, Kolkata issued a Letter of Intent (LOI for short) in favour of
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 judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not interfere with an arbitral award unless the arbitrator's conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. The court's ....
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contract terms, breach of contract, and the limited scope of interference with the arbitrator's award based on the violation ....
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
