Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh
GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. The present petition is filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) assailing the Arbitral Award dated 27.11.2017 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator wherein all the 16 claims raised by the petitioner were rejected.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. M/s GL Event Services and M/s Meroform (India) Pvt. Ltd. formed a consortium and signed a Consortium Agreement dated 19.05.2009 to bid for a tender related to the Commonwealth Games 2010, which were scheduled to be held in Delhi in October, 2010.The consortium formed a Joint Venture Company namely GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the petitioner, in pursuance of Clause 1 of Annexure - A of the Consortium Agreement.
3. The responsibility of organizing the Commonwealth Games Projects for Design Built Maintenance and Rental Contract for Temporary Accommodation using Tensile Fabric at Commonwealth Games Village was assigned to the respondent. Pursuant to this, the respondents invited applications for short-listing suitable organization/companies for providing Games Overlays/ temporary fitments on Turnkey basis and for executing works under Commonwealth Games Projects, through a Global Ten
Substantial delay in pronouncing an arbitral award undermines justice and can be grounds for setting aside the award under public policy considerations.
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.
Inordinate delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award, without sufficient justification, renders the award patently illegal and subject to annulment under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conci....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not interfere with an arbitral award unless the arbitrator's conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. The court's ....
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....
Delay in passing an arbitral award must be justified; unexplained delays can invalidate the award under public policy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the absolute and unextendible nature of the time-limit prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge an aw....
The scope for judicial intervention in arbitral awards is strictly limited to clear violations of public policy or patent illegality; mere procedural errors or delays do not warrant the award's setti....
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
