Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
P.SAM KOSHY, N.TUKARAMJI
Municipal Corporation Of Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
R.S. Rangadas – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.Tukaramji, J.
We have heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the appellant and revision petitioner in C.M.A.No.215 of 2006 and C.R.P.No.1210 of 2006 respectively and respondent No.1 in C.M.A.No.106 of 2006 and C.R.P.No.1599 of 2006. None appeared for the respondents in C.M.A.No.215 of 2006 and C.R.P.No.1210 of 2006 and for appellant in C.M.A.No.106 of 2006 and for revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.1599 of 2006.
2. The appeals and revision petitions are against the common judgment dated 26.09.2005 in O.P.No.30 of 1996 and O.P.No.10 of 2000 passed by the learned XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thus, these matters are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. C.M.A.Nos.215 of 2006 and 106 of 2006 are filed assailing the decree and judgment dated 26.09.2005 in O.P.No.10 of 2000, on the file of XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
4. C.R.P.Nos.1210 and 1599 of 2006 are filed challenging the decree and judgment dated 26.09.2005 in O.P.No.30 of 1996 passed by the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
5. C.M.A.N
The court affirmed that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited, allowing intervention only for evident legal errors, not for reevaluation of evidence or correctness.
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
Point of law: Arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act.
The court affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards unless stark violations of public policy or procedural....
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.
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
