Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Courts under Section 34 Cannot Modify Arbitral Awards: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on November 2, 2023, the High Court, comprising of Justices YASHWANT VARMA and DHARMESH SHARMA, emphasized the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The case revolved around an appeal by the National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd. (NPCC) against a judgment that partially set aside an arbitral award concerning liquidated damages. The appellant and respondent, M/S AAC India Pvt. Ltd., had entered into an agreement for the installation of a Fire Protection System. Due to project delays, the matter went into arbitration.

In its observation, the Court stated, “The jurisdiction under Section 34 is neither appellate nor revisional,” underscoring that an award can only be set aside on limited grounds specified in the Act. The Court further highlighted that there is no power vested in the Court to modify an award under Section 34.

The High Court also scrutinized the contractual clauses related to liquidated damages. It found that the learned ADJ had misconstrued evidence and correspondence between the parties. The Court observed, “The finding given by the learned ADJ that imposition of LD was only being negotiated upon is absolutely flawed.”

High Court set aside the order of the learned ADJ to the extent it struck down the award dated 29 August 2016 regarding payment of liquidated damages. The award passed by the Arbitrator was upheld in its entirety.

The ruling is expected to have significant implications for arbitration proceedings and the scope of judicial interference in such matters.

 Date of Decision: o2 November 2023

NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTIONS CORPORATION LTD. (NPCC) VS  M/S AAC INDIA PVT. LTD.   

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Del-02-Nov-23-NPCC-Vs-ACC-India.pdf"]

Latest Legal News