CLOSE
11 February 2022 | Coxswain Projects & Estates (P) Ltd v. NJ Constructions | Arb A No 27 of 2020 | PB Suresh Kumar & CS Sudha JJ | Kerala High Court | 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 856
Is a cross objection maintainable in a proceeding under Section 37 ACA? The Kerala High Court begins its decision with this question but, in answer, notes that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court. So, it relied on the fact that the cross-objection was not timely filed even if it was maintainable.
The court also reversed the set-aside court’s findings and upheld the tribunal’s findings on liquidated damages against the respondent. However, the post-award interest rate was modified to 6% from 18% granted.
In a 2002 decision, ITI Ltd v. Siemens (2002) 5 SCC 510, a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that because the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not expressly excluded, it applied to cases arising under the ACA. Accordingly, they concluded that the remedy of revision under Section 115 CPC was available.
In 2016, another 2-judge bench --MTNL v. Applied Electronics (2017) 2 SCC 37--disagreed with ITI and referred the matter to a larger bench. It was of the view that the application of CPC in arbitration cases was not conceivable, and cross-objections were not maintainable. This 3-judge bench matter is pending (Civil Appeal No. 11584/2016).
Read the decision here.
Categories: Appealable Orders | Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure | Application for Setting Aside Arbitral Award | Arbitrators Interpretation of Contract | Associate Builders | Award of Interest | Form and Contents of Arbitral Award | Grant of Interest | Hyder Consulting | Interest | Merits Based Review | Patent Illegality | Plausible View | Post Award Interest | Reappreciation of Evidence | Revaluation of Evidence | Review on the Merits of the Dispute | Section 31 (7) ACA | Section 31 ACA | Section 34 (2A) | Section 34 ACA | Section 37 ACA | Ssangyong | Unconscionable Contract