SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

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