Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

An arbitral award cannot alter the terms and conditions of a valid contract: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal against the setting aside of an arbitral award, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the terms of the contract in arbitration proceedings. The judgment, pronounced on December 20, 2023, by a bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur, reaffirms the sanctity of contractual obligations in arbitration disputes.

The case, FAO(OS) (COMM) 68/2017, Involved a dispute between M/s Rocks Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr. (Appellants) and Ram Kishan Singh (Respondent) over a brokerage agreement related to a land transaction in Goa. The appellants challenged the Single Judge’s decision to set aside an arbitral award that had originally dismissed the respondent’s claim for a brokerage fee and the appellants’ counterclaim.

Justice Shalinder Kaur, in her judgment, underscored the significance of contract terms in arbitration, stating, “An arbitral award cannot alter the terms and conditions of a valid contract consciously executed between the parties. In case an arbitrator travels beyond the contract, he would be acting without jurisdiction.” This observation formed the crux of the court’s decision, highlighting the arbitrator’s deviation from the contractual terms as a key factor in setting aside the award.

The appellants argued that the Single Judge had Incorrectly interpreted the brokerage agreement and exceeded the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Conversely, the respondent contended that the Arbitrator had created a scenario not stipulated in the agreement, thereby acting beyond jurisdiction.

The High Court, after a detailed examination of the brokerage agreement and the arguments presented, concluded that the Arbitral Tribunal had misconstrued the terms of the agreement, leading to a perverse finding. The court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, noting that the respondent had fulfilled his obligations under the agreement and was wrongly denied the brokerage fee.

This ruling serves as a significant reminder of the limitations of arbitral tribunals in deviating from the express terms of a contract and reinforces the principle that arbitrators must operate within the confines of the contractual obligations agreed upon by the parties.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the decision to set aside the original arbitral award and granting liberty to the respondent to seek fresh arbitration in accordance with the law. This judgment is expected to have a substantial impact on the interpretation of contracts in arbitration proceedings.

Date of Decision : December 20, 2023

M/S ROCKS BUILDCON PVT LTD & ANR. VS RAM KISHAN SINGH 

 

Latest Legal News