Del. HC: Accrual of Cause of Action at a Place is not a Consideration for Determining Jurisdiction  ||  Mad. HC to State: Prevent use of Stickers such as ‘Police’ or ‘GOI’ on Private Vehicles  ||  Bom. HC: Magistrate Needn’t Provide Additional Reasons for Amount of Interim Compensation Awarded  ||  Del. HC: ‘THEOBROMA’ is Free to Expand its Outlets Across the Country  ||  Ker. HC: Detention Order Under KAPPA 2007 must be Confirmed Within 3 Months from Date of Execution  ||  Kar. HC: Not Every False Statement Made in Court Must be Subject to Prosecution  ||  Ker. HC: Roads are Ordinarily Deserted During Night; Likelihood of Causing Death by Accident is Less  ||  Del. HC: Severity of Offence Can’t Disentitle Foreigner to Get Parole for Filing SLP  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Compound Proceedings u/s 138 NI Act at Revision Stage Without Complainant’s Consent  ||  Bom. HC: There Should be Some Accountability Fixed on Courts in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration    

Union of India Vs. Om Vajrakaya Construction Company - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Mar 2023)

Appellate Court should generally not interfere unless it is apparent that the perversity of the arbitral award goes to the root of the case



Present appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the objections of the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been partially allowed.

Present Court is of the opinion that, the impugned order has correctly held that, Arbitrator had evaluated the matter placed before it to come to a well considered view that, the delay was attributable to the Appellant since the resources deployed by the Respondent could not be deployed in entirety due to several reasons, including non-availability of drawings, non-availability of free site for execution, non-sanctioning of ESP (Engineering Scale Plan), cutting of trees, etc. The Arbitral Tribunal has also found that, there was extensive inter-departmental communications on record to show that, the delays and hindrances pointed out by the Respondent had been admitted. The finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the Respondent was compelled to execute additional items is a question of fact and the impugned judgment has correctly held that, it cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.

Present Court in Mangalwar Filling Station vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors., has held that once an arbitral award has been confirmed in an application filed under Section 34 of the Act, the appellate Court must be extremely cautious in disturbing concurrent findings of fact and law as they are ordinarily not amenable to interference under Section 37 of the Act. This Court further observed in the said judgment that, the Appellate Court should generally not interfere unless it is apparent that the perversity of the arbitral award goes to the root of the case without a possibility of alternative interpretation that might sustain the award. Appeal dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved