Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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