CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Reinforces Minimal Interference Principle in Contractual Disputes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that reaffirms the sanctity of arbitration in commercial disputes, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the decision of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) regarding an arbitral award. The bench, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma, has upheld the Arbitrator’s award in the case of Aman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S Orient Lites, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitration awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In the contested judgment, the appellant, Aman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., appealed against the ADJ’s order which had dismissed their application under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The appellant contended that the Sole Arbitrator had exceeded the scope of reference by considering invoices and bills beyond the initial contractual agreement. However, the court found these arguments unmeritorious, holding that the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction duly encompassed all relevant invoices and bills, and that the computation of dues was correctly based on a running account and mutual agreements.

The High Court also affirmed the award of a 7.5% per annum simple interest on the outstanding amount from the due date to the date of realization. This decision aligns with the court’s established stance that arbitration awards should not be interfered with merely because an alternative interpretation of the contract is possible.

The judgment draws on significant precedents, Including the cases of MMTC Ltd. V. Vedanta Ltd., NHAI v. M. Hakeem, and Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. V. Chenab Bridge Project, to delineate the contours of permissible judicial intervention in arbitral awards. By doing so, the court has reinforced the principle of minimal interference, a cornerstone of modern arbitration jurisprudence.

Legal experts view this decision as a testament to the judiciary’s respect for arbitration as a preferred mode of resolving commercial disputes and its commitment to upholding the autonomy of the arbitration process.

Representing the appellant were Mr. P. K. Agrawal, Ms. Rohini Das, Mr. Akshay, and Mr. R. S. Yadav, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Tushar Agarwal and Mr. Arun Kumar. The judgment is seen as a crucial reinforcement of arbitration’s role in the efficient and effective resolution of commercial disputes in India.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2023

AMAN HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD VS M/S ORIENT LITES         

Latest Legal News