Wife Not Entitled to Maintenance When Financially Secure and Dishonest: Punjab & Haryana High Court Boycott of Courts Violates Litigants’ Right to Speedy Justice: Rajasthan High Court Slams Lawyers' Strike Over Working Saturdays Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Proviso Cannot Defeat the Main Provision Which Allows Amendment ‘At Any Stage of Proceedings’: Karnataka High Court Knife Used To Enlarge Child’s Vagina Before Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Death Sentence In ‘Rarest Of Rare’ Case 47 BNSS | Mere Mention of Offence and Sections Is Not Disclosure of Grounds of Arrest: Allahabad High Court Quashes Arrest for Failure to Furnish Written Grounds Quasi-Judicial Officers Aren’t Criminals For Passing Orders: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against Executive Officer In Mutation Dispute Sections 215 & 379 BNSS | Police Cannot Register FIR Without Judicial Satisfaction Where Alleged Offence Relates to Court Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Magistrate Empowered To Try Drug Offence Under Section 27(d) Despite It Falling Under Chapter IV: J&K High Court Information Commission Has No Power To Impose Blanket Ban On RTI Applications: Orissa High Court Strikes Down Restriction On Filing Future RTIs Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Shield for Crimes That Threaten Communal Harmony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Bail Plea in Beef Possession Case Drug And Cosmetic Act | Sample Testing Must Be Completed Within 60 Days Under Rule 45 – Delay Vitiates Entire Prosecution: Bombay High Court 156(3) CrPC | Handwriting Expert's Report May Not Be Final – But It’s Sufficient to Initiate Investigation: Delhi High Court 217 CrPC | Alteration of Charges Is Not a Mere Formality: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Dowry Death Conviction Maintenance Is Not a Charity, It's an Implied Right: Chhattisgarh High Court Cancels Gift Deed for Denial of Care to Elderly Donors Minor Inconsistencies Can't Overturn Disability Claims: Bombay High Court imposes ₹2 lakh costs on HDFC Justice Must Not Be a Casualty of Clerical Oversight: AP High Court Last Seen Is Not Last Word – Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Complete and Compelling: Allahabad High Court Nomination Has Sanctity—Succession Certificate Not Mandatory When Valid Nominee Exists: Supreme Court in GPF Dispute

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