Topic
The Supreme Court held that an express contractual bar on interest (Clause 54 GCC) absolutely bars pre-reference interest, overriding Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act. It upholds party autonomy, affecting contractors and employers drafting GCC terms.
Delhi High Court dismisses appeal, upholding arbitral award and confirming narrow scope of judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Karnataka High Court holds that an arbitral tribunal's failure to consider RA Bills showing 18% GST inclusion in non-tendered works (valued at ₹9.65 crores) constitutes patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The ruling reinforces that tribunals must account for tax implications in contract disputes, impacting construction and commercial arbitration.
The Kerala High Court affirmed that a contractor is entitled to payment for work substantially completed, even when the contract is terminated, but must have the value of unreturned materials deducted if the contractor has formally admitted their non-return. This clarifies the legal standard for set-off in construction disputes where written admissions override speculative cost claims.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that when an arbitration award is remanded for fresh adjudication, the tribunal is bound by prior judicial findings on state-caused delay and cannot revisit or negate them. This reinforces the doctrine of judicial finality in construction arbitration, protecting contractors from arbitrary recalculations of delay liability even after remand.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a contractor's delay claim is valid when supported by a government-maintained hindrance register, even if the contract purports to bar compensation. This sets a critical precedent for public infrastructure projects, affirming that administrative records of delay take precedence over boilerplate contractual exclusions, empowering contractors to seek fair redress against delayed public works.
MP High Court rules that invoking a performance bank guarantee without first exhausting contractual dispute resolution mechanisms violates agreement terms and natural justice. The ruling reinforces that parties must adhere to prescribed contractual remedies before resorting to bank guarantee encashment, impacting construction contracts and commercial agreements.