07 December 2021 | Marsons Electrical Industries v. Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. | OMP (Comm.) No. 2/2020 | Vibhu Bakhru J | Delhi High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5238
The High Court of Delhi has ruled, considering an award that had rejected some claims as time-barred, that where the buyer used to make payments against specific invoices, the period of limitation would not stand extended because of part payment in respect of any other invoice. It also said that the payments could not be considered a running account.
Moreover, it added, the tribunal’s decision on facts was final.
Considering rejection of another claim towards loss of profit, business opportunity, goodwill, etcetera, the court said that the award could not be faulted because there was no material to substantiate the claim. On this point, the court was “of the view that … the award of damages [if had been made] without the claimant establishing the same by cogent evidence would be patently illegal and also fall foul of the Public Policy of India”.
Read the decision here.
Categories: Accrual of Right to Apply | Application for Setting Aside Arbitral Award | Arbitrators Interpretation of Contract | Associate Builders | Damages | Fundamental Policy of Indian Law | Gemini Bay | Limitation | Merits Based Review | Patent Illegality | Plausible View | Proof of Damages | Public Policy | Public Policy of India | Reappreciation of Evidence | Revaluation of Evidence | Review on the Merits of the Dispute | Running Account | Section 34 (2) (a) ACA | Section 34 (2) (b) (ii) ACA | Section 34 ACA | Ssangyong | Time Barred Claim