Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, N.TUKARAMJI, JJ
APSRTC, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
R.S. Rangadas – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(P. SAM KOSHY, J.)
Heard Mr. S.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / Contractor.
2. The instant is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity ‘the Act’ hereinafter). The challenge is to the order dated 15.03.2004 in O.P.No.2219 of 2000 passed by the II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court had parly allowed the petition filed by the under Section 34 of the Act by allowing the claims raised by respondent No.1 / Contractor and at the same time rejected the counter claim raised by the appellant.
4. The brief facts which led to filing of the instant appeal are that the respondent No.1 is a contractor who was awarded the contract of construction of the Auditorium and Kalyana Mandapam, Azamabad, Hyderabad. An agreement in respect of the aforesaid work was entered into between the appellant and respondent No.1 on 22.11.1991. Initially, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the work was to be completed
The court affirmed that the scope of interference in arbitral awards is limited, emphasizing that awards can only be set aside on specific grounds, including patent illegality or violation of public ....
The court confirmed that the scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited, emphasizing the binding nature of arbitration agreements.
(1) Appeal against modified arbitral award – Merits of award are only to be gone into, if award is demonstrated to be contrary to public policy of India.(2) Arbitral proceedings are per se not compar....
Judicial scrutiny under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited; courts must respect arbitral awards unless proven to violate public policy or statutory obligations, affirming the principle t....
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
The court upheld the arbitral award, affirming that contractual obligations prevail over departmental instructions, and emphasized the limited scope of appellate review under the Arbitration and Conc....
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
