High Court Dismisses Railway's Challenge to Arbitral Award in Favour of Contractor for Replacement of OHE Structures. Arbitral Tribunal's findings on mutual defaults and rejection of counter claims upheld as not perverse or illegal.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 118
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, Chief Electrical Traction Engineer, Western Railways (Union of India), challenged an arbitral award dated 1 March 2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of the Respondent, M/s. New Adarsh Electrical Works (Contractor), concerning work of replacement of corroded OHE structures. The contractor had submitted 17 claims, of which the Tribunal granted three: illegal and undue recoveries against R & C (Rs. 12,71,675), illegal and undue recoveries against penalty (Rs. 4,72,517), and due payments for work completed and supply of materials including release of security deposit (Rs. 6,33,697). All six counter claims of the Railways were rejected. The Railways did not challenge the rejection of their counter claims. The court noted that the Tribunal, after considering evidence, found defaults on both sides in contract management and held that the Railways had not fulfilled its obligation adequately. The court found no perversity or illegality in the award and dismissed the petition, upholding the award.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Challenge to Arbitral Award - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Perversity and Illegality - The court considered whether the arbitral award granting claims to the contractor was perverse or illegal. The court held that the Tribunal's findings on mutual defaults and rejection of counter claims were based on evidence and not perverse. The unchallenged rejection of counter claims clinched the issue in favour of maintaining the award. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the arbitral award dated 1 March 2011 granting claims to the contractor is perverse or illegal warranting interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Arbitration Petition, upholding the arbitral award dated 1 March 2011. The court found no perversity or illegality in the award.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Arbitral Award
  • Challenge under Section 34
  • Perversity
  • Illegality
  • Mutual Defaults
  • Counter Claims
  • Unchallenged Findings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 153

Arbitration Petition No. 664 of 2012

2015-01-29

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

2015:BHC-OS:1335

Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms. Sangita Yadav for the Petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Tiwari with Swapnil Ambre with Bsant Trilokani for the Respondent

Chief Electrical Traction Engineer, Western Railways

M/s. New Adarsh Electrical Works

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner (Railways) sought to set aside the arbitral award dated 1 March 2011 granting claims to the Respondent (Contractor).

Filing Reason

The Petitioner challenged the award on grounds of perversity and illegality.

Previous Decisions

The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award on 1 March 2011 granting three claims to the contractor and rejecting all six counter claims of the Railways. The rejection of counter claims was not challenged by the Railways.

Issues

Whether the arbitral award is perverse or illegal warranting interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the award was perverse and illegal. Respondent supported the award.

Ratio Decidendi

The unchallenged rejection of counter claims by the Railways clinches the issue in favour of maintaining the award. The Tribunal's findings on mutual defaults are based on evidence and not perverse. No interference under Section 34 is warranted.

Judgment Excerpts

There is no perversity and or even any illegality. The unchallenged rejection of counter claims clinches the issue in favour of the reasons maintaining the award so passed by the Tribunal.

Procedural History

The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award on 1 March 2011. The Petitioner filed Arbitration Petition No. 664 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award. The petition was reserved on 19 December 2014 and pronounced on 29 January 2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Contempt Appeal, Sets Aside Conviction for Willful Disobedience of Court Order in Land Dispute. Appellants Held Not Guilty of Contempt as Order Was Ambiguous and Compliance Was Not Willfully Disobeyed.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Grievance Committee Orders Due to Lapsed Vice Chancellor Directions — University Grievance Committee Lacks Jurisdiction to Pass Interim Orders After Directions Automatically Lapse Under Section 12(8) of Maharashtra Public ...