UNION OF INDIA vs M/S SHEKHAR ENTERPRISES Advocate - AMIT KUMAR GUPTA — FAO/2808/2023

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 37. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 20th January 2025.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010709092023

Filing Number

FAO/28538/2023

Filing Date

26-May-2023

Registration No

FAO/2808/2023

Registration Date

26-May-2023

Judge

Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji

Coram

Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji

Category

0 ( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

20-Jan-2025

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 37

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA

    Adv. ARUN GOSAIN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S SHEKHAR ENTERPRISES Advocate - AMIT KUMAR GUPTA

  2. 2.BRIG SK GROVER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Jan-2025

    Ms. Justice Lapita BanerjiView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the Union of India's appeal challenging an arbitrator's award in favor of M/s Shekhar Enterprises, holding that the arbitrator's decision was within reasonable interpretation of contract clauses and did not violate public policy. The court found no infirmity in the lower court's order upholding the award, noting that the arbitrator passed the award within the consensually extended mandate period and courts cannot interfere with arbitral awards merely because an alternative interpretation exists. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. FAO/2808/2023

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the Union of India's appeal challenging an arbitrator's award in favor of M/s Shekhar Enterprises, holding that the arbitrator's decision was within reasonable interpretation of contract clauses and did not violate public policy. The court found no infirmity in the lower court's order upholding the award, noting that the arbitrator passed the award within the consensually extended mandate period and courts cannot interfere with arbitral awards merely because an alternative interpretation exists. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case