Category: Recourse against Arbitral Awards

ISSUE:

Whether the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was legally obligated to compensate the contractor for the significant delay in the construction project that the arbitrators determined?

Whether the division bench of the High Court's use of the principle of "rough and ready justice" was a suitable criterion for determining compensation amounts in cases of construction project delays.

RULE:

In circumstances involving construction contracts and delays, courts may apply the idea of "rough and ready justice" to determine the amount of compensation. Based on the facts of the case, this approach helps courts to decide a reasonable and justifiable compensation sum.

ISSUE:

Whether it is permissible for a court to rely on the findings of a subsequent award in resolving objections brought against a previous award in a case involving several awards and arbitration proceedings, whether it is permissible for a court to rely on the findings of a subsequent award in resolving objections brought against a previous award.

Whether the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act have explicit provisions or established legal principles to handle the issue of multiple arbitral processes and promote effective dispute resolution?

Whether the Act contains instructions or procedures for dealing with the problem of varied arbitral processes and ensuring that dispute resolution adheres to the terms of the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act?

RULE:

To avoid multiple arbitrations, parties interested in arbitration pertaining to the same contract should combine their claims into a single arbitration procedure if practicable. This ensures that dispute resolution is more efficient and effective.

ISSUE:

Whether the Arbitral Tribunal's decision that Haldiram's claim is not barred by limitation because Megha acknowledged her debt through email conversations complies with Section 18 of the Limitation Act?

Whether, in light of the High Sea Sale Agreements' choice of jurisdiction, the Arbitral Tribunal's decision that it had territorial jurisdiction to decide Haldiram's claims is legally sound and consistent with the parties' intentions under the agreements?

RULE:

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (A&C Act) controls the arbitration proceedings in this matter, while the Limitation Act of 1963 is consulted for concerns concerning the limitation period.

ISSUE:

Whether the Meghalaya High Court's decision to overturn the arbitral award was justified on the basis of 'patent illegality.'

Whether the Amendment Act of 2015's modifications to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 should be considered in this instance?

RULE:

Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers the court to vacate a domestic arbitral ruling if it is tainted by 'patent illegality' on the face of the award. The term "patent illegality" refers to situations in which the arbitrator's ruling is determined to be perverse, unreasonable, or opposed to substantive provisions of law, the 1996 Act, or the conditions of the contract.

ISSUE:

Whether the arbitral tribunal's interpretation of Clause 23 as involving a price increase in high-speed diesel (HSD) due to an Executive Order was a reasonable construction of the contract provisions, given that the contract appeared to envisage a fixed rate for the contractor?

Whether the arbitral tribunal's interpretation, while based on the principle of harmonious interpretation, was so implausible and contrary to the overall terms of the contract that it could be considered against Indian public policy, justifying the High Court's overturning of the arbitral award?

RULE:

The rule established in this case is that, while courts and tribunals should normally use a harmonic interpretation of contract words to determine the parties' intent, such interpretation must nevertheless be consistent with the contract's overall terms and conditions. An interpretation that is not plausible in the context of the contract may be rejected, particularly if it contradicts the contract's plain stipulations and is contrary to Indian public policy.