Back
P. NAVEEN RAO, J. SREENIVAS RAO
Rama Constructions (formerly known as Rohini Constructions) – Appellant
Versus
Max Infra (I) Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.Naveen Rao, J.
Heard learned counsel Sri K.Prabhakar for the appellant and the learned counsel Ms.Pratusha Boppanna appearing for the learned counsel Sri A.Venkatesh for respondent no.1.
2. The appellant in COMCA No. 48 of 2020 and COMCA.No.49 of 2020 is claimant before the learned Arbitrator and petitioner in C.O.P.No.232 of 2017 in the Court of the Judge Commercial Court cum XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent herein is respondent before the learned Arbitrator and petitioner in C.O.P.No.195 of 2017. Parties are referred to as arrayed before the learned Arbitrator.
3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded contract to execute balance of the work of ‘Thotapally Barrage Project EPC Package-1’ to a joint venture comprising of respondent and M/s.Prasad Constructions. The agreement was signed on 31.8.2012. In turn the respondent entrusted the entire work to the claimant with same terms as contained in the agreement dated 31.8.2012 entered with the Government. The agreement was entered into on 10.9.2012 called as ‘work order’. However, the agreement envisaged that out of the bills payable for the works executed by the claimant the responde
The arbitration awards must only address claims within the contractual framework; arbitrary or excessive costs cannot be imposed against a party prevailing in the challenge to non-arbitrable claims.
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....
Judicial interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own view. Where parties are given adequate notic....
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 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
