Back
P. NAVEEN RAO, SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
K. Naranjan Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.
Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dated 15-03-2018 in Arbitration O.P.No.116 of 2011 by which his request for setting aside the Award dated 09-08-2007 passed by the learned Arbitrator in respect of his Claims No.4 to 6 and 9 of his claim statement was dismissed, the petitioner in the said Arb.O.P.No.116 of 2011, and claimant in Arbitration application No.7 of 2004 filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds.
2. Before going into the merits of the appeal and grounds on which the present appeal is filed, it would be necessary to look into the details of said Arbitration Application, Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, petition in the Arbitration O.P., and order therein.
3. Prior to 1990, the Railway Board took a decision to run the trains on a track free from harsh sounds, bumps and jerks which occur at the joints of rails. A policy was evolved to join the rails through welding process so that there will not be any joint between the rails, which generally cause sounds, bumps etc., A Transport system consisting stanchion rakes and chute system was required for c
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award are limited and must fall within the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation A....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Arbitration Act, 1996 does not permit the Court to sit as an Appellate Court to find defects in the award. Additionally, the Arbitrator ha....
The limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the A&C Act of 1996 and the requirement for an arbitral award to be suffering from patent illegality for it to be set aside.
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 Ld. Arbitrator's jurisdiction, the applicability of Clause 16(2) of the Agreement, and the sufficiency of reasons provided in the award were the main legal points established in the judgment.
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 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 judiciary's role in arbitration is to ensure courts do not reassess merits but identify manifest errors and whether vital evidence was overlooked by the arbitral tribunal.
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
