Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
M. Shiva Kumar And Company – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J.
Aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2011 in Original Petition No.960 of 2006 (impugned Order) passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Nalgonda, wherein the application filed by appellant to set aside the Award dated 24.08.2006 passed by learned Arbitrator-respondent No.2, was dismissed.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Arbitrator.
03. Respondent-Barath Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), represented by the General Manager, Telecom, Nalgonda issued seal tenders from the experienced civil contractors for the digging trenches, laying underground cables, carrying out jointing, erection of DPs, termination at Pillars, DPs etc. for the divisions of Nalgonda (Rural&Urban), Miryalaguda, Bhongir, Suryapet, Kodad and Devarakonda. Claimant was the successful tenderer for the said works. As per the Clause 28 of the Tender Schedule, the agreement should be executed by and in between respondent and claimant on stamp paper of Rs.100/- but the agreement was written on a stamp paper of Rs.20/-. Further, agreement does not contain the signature of respondent-BSNL, so, there is no agreement
The arbitration agreement's validity is independent of stamp duty on the substantive contract, and courts have limited grounds for interfering with arbitral awards.
The arbitration agreement's validity is independent of stamp duty issues, and courts have limited grounds for interfering with arbitral awards.
The arbitration agreement's validity is independent of stamp duty on the substantive contract, and courts have limited grounds for interfering with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration....
The court upheld the validity of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference and the necessity of demonstrating clear error or illegality.
The court upheld the arbitrator's award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference in arbitration matters.
The limited scope of intervention by Courts in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need to satisfy specific grounds for setting aside an arbitral....
The court affirmed that an entity can claim compensation for work performed under a non-finalized contract if the work was conducted at the direction of another party, underscoring the principle of q....
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
