Allowed

mr girish s khandagale v. union of india acting through deputy chief engineer (c) central railway and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2010ARBP/2/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a section 34 arbitration petition challenging an award passed without engaging with material evidence. The High Court set aside the award regarding both the claim and counter-claim and directed the appointment of a fresh arbitral tribunal to decide the disputes using the existing record.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 11th October 2006 set aside; General Manager of Central Railways directed to appoint fresh Arbitral Tribunal; existing record to be relied upon.

mr girish s khandagale Vs union of india acting through deputy… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 arbp-2-07

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

jmi

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITON NO. 2 OF 2007.

¶5

Mr. Girish S. Khandagale.

¶6

..Petitioner.

¶7

vs.

¶8

Union of India acting through Deputy Chief Engineer (C) Central Railway, Panvel & Ors.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Ms. Vaishali Choudhari, for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER 2010.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This is a Petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and

¶14

Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the Award dated 11^th October 2006 made by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators.

¶15

There is no dispute about the fact that the parties have entered into an agreement. It is also admitted that the agreement contains an Arbitration clause and the reference of disputes was validly made to the Arbitrator.

¶16

The Petitioner’s claim arises on account of the allegedly illegal termination of the contract by the Respondents. It is not possible, at this stage, to consider the merits of the disputes between the parties as the Award itself has not considered the same. The

¶17

2 arbp-2-07

¶18

entire claim has been disposed of in a few sentences without referring to the material evidence relied upon by the parties. The Arbitral Tribunal only states the contentions of the parties.

¶19

In the circumstances, the Award so far as it rejects the claim of the Petitioner must be set aside.

¶20

The validity of the counter-claim raised by the Respondents also depends upon the findings of the claim. On that ground itself, the Award so far as it allows the counter-claim must also be set aside.

¶21

Both the parties agreed that instead of leaving them to any other remedy, the interest of justice requires that the disputes be referred to a fresh Arbitral Tribunal.

¶22

The Petition is, therefore, disposed of as follows :

¶23

(i) The Award dated 11^th October 2006 is set aside.

¶24

(ii) The General Manager, Central Railways shall appoint

¶25

a fresh Arbitral Tribunal to decide the claims and counter-claims of the parties.

¶26

(iii) The record already available shall be relied upon by the new Arbitral Tribunal.

¶27

(iv) No order as to costs.

mr girish s khandagale v. union of india acting through deputy chief engineer (c) central railway and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

mr girish s khandagale v. union of india acting through deputy chief engineer (c) central railway and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

nalini ramakant jadhav Vs manorama wd/o mashavrao jagtap and Ors.

Bastion Construction Vs Nusli N. Wadia and 2 Ors.

Videocon International Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sahil Sanjay Mehta Vs Director, Medical Education and Research, and Anr.

Dr. Satish Revansidh Hanamshetti and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Makers Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs the Life Insurance Corporation of India and 11 Ors.