Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Director General Central Reserve Police Force Vs Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : O.M.P. (COMM) 511/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/05/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Director General Central Reserve Police Force Vs Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, the Director General of the Central Reserve Police Force, issued a tender inviting bids for supply of 288 numbers of Boat Assault Universal Type and 288 numbers of 50 HP Out Board Motor. In response to the same, the respondent Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd., submitted its bid and was declared as the lowest bidder. Following that, the parties entered into an agreement. After a dispute arose between the parties, the respondent invoked the agreement to refer the disagreements to arbitration. 

The respondent approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the auspices of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award of ₹18,32,22,680, in favour of the respondent along with costs quantified at ₹8,00,000. In addition, the Arbitral Tribunal also awarded pre- reference and pendente lite interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Further, the Arbitral Tribunal also awarded future interest on the awarded amount. Aggrieved by the arbitral award the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Section 34 of the A&C Act, challenging the arbitral award. 

 Issue:

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Author Bio

Abhishek is a practicing Advocate enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi. He has completed his BA.LLB (Hons) from school of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University) Bangalore and currently working as an Associate Advocate at the Chambers of Senior Advocate Ratan Kumar Singh. As an advocate, he deals wi View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Court’s powers under section 27 of Arbitration Act are not adjudicatory: Delhi HC Modified Resolution Plan cannot be directly presented to NCLT without final approval from COC No bar against legal proceedings continuing concurrently with IBC liquidation proceedings  Counter-claim of a party cannot be rejected merely because claims were not notified prior to initiating arbitration Case Summary Sri Babu A Dhammanagi vs Union of India View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031