Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Indian Oil Corporation (Bongaigaon Refinery) – Appellant
Versus
Esteem Projects Private Limited - – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual foundation of the arbitral dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. appellant's contention regarding lack of arbitral jurisdiction due to non-notified claims under gcc clauses. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. respondent's argument on the limited scope of judicial interference under section 34/37 of the arbitration act. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. court's interpretation of gcc clauses governing notified vs. non-notified claims in arbitral disputes. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. limited scope of appellate review where the arbitral tribunal's interpretation is plausible and non-perverse. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 6. final dismissal of appeal and affirmation of the arbitral award. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 37 (1) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the appellant, namely, Indian Oil
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
