9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to arbitral award based on contract terms, objections under Section 34(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, consideration of arbitral award by the High Court, power of arbitrator to grant interest, applicability of a judgment of the Gauhati High Court in a similar case. Analysis: The appeal before the Delhi High Court stemmed from the Union of India's dissatisfaction with an arbitral award, specifically contesting four claims made by the respondent based on clauses 4.1, 7.2, 22.5, and 3.3 of the contract. The High Court reviewed the arbitral award and the objections raised by the appellant, noting that the award was unanimous and thoroughly considered by a Tribunal comprising technical individuals. The High Court found that the learned Single Judge had validly dismissed the objections of the appellant, as they were unable to demonstrate any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. A significant argument put forth by the appellant was the arbitrator's alleged lack of power to grant interest, citing a judgment of the Gauhati High Court in a related case. However, the High Court carefully examined the Gauhati High Court's judgment and concluded that it was not applicable to the present case. The High Court agreed with the learned Single Judge's distinction of the Gauhati High Court's decision and found no grounds for interference in the impugned order. In the final analysis, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no basis for challenging the arbitral award or the decision of the learned Single Judge. The High Court's decision was based on a thorough review of the contract terms, the arbitral award, and the relevant legal principles, ultimately upholding the lower court's ruling and rejecting the appellant's objections.
|
