Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

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 

 

Similar News