9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Petition under Arbitration Act seeking direction to file award and proceedings, objections filed by respondent regarding setting aside the award based on calculation of profit, application of legal precedent in determining expected profit, dismissal of objections, granting future interest. Analysis: Issue 1: Petition under Arbitration Act The petitioner filed a petition under sections 14 and 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking directions for respondents to file the award and proceedings in court. The court ordered notice to be issued to the respondents, and objections were filed by respondent No. 1/UOI challenging the award dated 27th January, 1994, based on various grounds. Issue 2: Objections Regarding Setting Aside the Award Respondent No. 1 raised objections to set aside the award, specifically focusing on the arbitrator's calculation of profit. The main contention was that the arbitrator erroneously ignored the costs of cement and steel while calculating the net tender amount. The respondent argued that the expected reasonable profit of 10% should have been awarded on the estimated cost instead of the tender amount. However, the petitioner relied on legal precedent, citing the decision in Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, to support the arbitrator's calculation of profit based on the contract amount. Issue 3: Application of Legal Precedent The court analyzed the legal precedent cited by both parties, emphasizing the principle that in cases of breach of contract, the contractor is entitled to claim damages for the loss of profit expected from the contract. The court referred to previous judgments that established the measure of damages for loss of profit, highlighting the importance of compensating the aggrieved party for the breach of contract. Based on this legal framework, the court concluded that the arbitrator had rightly awarded the expected reasonable profit of 10% on the contract amount to the petitioner. Issue 4: Dismissal of Objections and Granting Future Interest Considering the arguments and legal principles, the court dismissed the objections filed by respondent No. 1 and made the award dated 27th January, 1994, the rule of the court. It was further ordered that if respondent No. 1 failed to pay the decretal amount to the petitioner within a month, the petitioner would be entitled to future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. No costs were awarded in this judgment. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, the application of legal precedent, and the final decision rendered by the court.
|
