Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

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         

Similar News