Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Engineer-In-Chief (R&B), CRN And Managing Director, Aprdc – Appellant
Versus
S.D.B. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case origin (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. grounds for appeal by the appellant (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. details of the contractual disputes (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. standard of review for arbitral awards (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. interpretation of contract clauses by arbitral tribunal (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. findings of the arbitral tribunal (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. findings of the trial court (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. final judgment and dismissal of appeal (Para 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Learned IX Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C),City Civil Court at Hyderabad (‘Trial Court’) dismissing the Arb.O.P.No.1559 of 2009 filed by the appellant/petitioner under section 34 (2) (iii) and (iv) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) for setting aside an Award dated 31.03.2009 to the extent of Claim Nos.4 and 16 under Dispute No.2 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. The appellant/Engineer-in-Chief (Roads & Buildings), Government of Andhra Pradesh was the claimant in Dispute No.1 in the arbitration proceedings. The respondent No.1/Contractor was the claimant in
The scope of judicial interference under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited; courts cannot review merits unless there is a clear violation of public policy or jurisdiction.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
Arbitrability of claims hinges on adherence to procedural agreements; claimants can seek interest despite contractual prohibitions, reflecting arbitral authority.
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....
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....
The appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
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
