Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

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

MANU/DE/1932/2023

Arbitration

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.

Tags : ARBITRAL AWARD   PROCEEDINGS   OBJECTIONS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved