Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Southern Railway Represented by its Senior Divisional Commercial Manager – Appellant
Versus
G.Bharathi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
This Original Side Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.584 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Railways under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and upheld the arbitral award dated 07.01.2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and, under a scheme earmarking certain catering stalls for persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, the Railway Administration invited bids for grant of licence to run Catering Stall No.SMU-5 at Platform No.2A/3 of Chennai Central Railway Station. Pursuant to the said tender, the respondent submitted her bid, which was accepted, and a Letter of Acceptance dated 02.02.2015 was issued in her favour granting licence to run the said catering stall for a period of five years, from 04.03.2015 to 03.03.2020. As per the terms of the allotment, the respondent paid a provisional licence fee of Rs.93,000/- and also remitted a security deposit calculated at 10% of the total licence fee for the entire licence period. The total licence fee for the said
The court held that an arbitral award compelling the renewal of a determinable contract is legally unsustainable and suffers from patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliatio....
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
Judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to assessing non-compliance with public policy or blatant errors; arbitral awards will not be disturbed unless they....
Parties must adhere to the detailed procedure for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before seeking court intervention.
The court upheld the arbitrator's decision on breach of contract, illegality of termination, and grant of damages, while denying the claim for interest.
The renewal of a contract does not guarantee entitlement to alterations. Any new terms by one party must respect the original agreement's parameters, resisting unilateral imposition without mutual co....
Point of law: Arbitration Award - It must clearly be understood that when a court is applying the "public policy" test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently e....
Point of Law : If there was variation in catering charges, revision of license fee was required to be on sales assessment basis and not pro-rata basis.
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....
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
