Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

Court Emphasizes Arbitrator as Sole Judge of Facts; Interference Should Be Avoided Unless Error of Law Is Shown – Supreme Court Restores Award in Road Construction Contract Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has restored an arbitration award in favor of the appellant concerning a road construction contract. The judgment, delivered by the bench of J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] and J. [DIPANKAR DATTA] on AUGUST 22, 2023, set aside the decisions of both the trial court and the High Court, which had earlier nullified the award.

The court emphasized the role of the arbitrator, stating, "It is axiomatic that courts, while adjudging whether an arbitration award calls for interference, have to be conscious that the arbitrator is the sole judge of facts; unless an error of law is shown, interference with the award should be avoided” [Para 23].

The dispute arose from a road construction contract awarded to the appellant by the Government of Maharashtra’s Irrigation Department. Following disagreements, the matter was referred to arbitration, resulting in a substantial award in favor of the appellant. The respondent state challenged the award, leading to its nullification by the lower courts.

In its observations, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the claims were not within the contracted period, considering the inordinate delay and extensions of time by mutual consent [Para 19]. The court also found no error in the award of damages for disruption in work due to water releases in the canal [Para 20-22].

The decision has been hailed as a strong affirmation of the principles of arbitration, reinforcing the autonomy of the arbitrator in adjudicating disputes. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of limiting judicial interference in arbitration awards, except in cases where a clear error of law is evident.

The respondents have been directed to ensure full payment in terms of the award to the appellant within eight weeks, and the appeals were allowed with the appellant entitled to costs throughout [Para 25].

 Date of Decision: AUGUST 22, 2023

 M/S S.D. SHINDE TR. PARTNER  vs GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.          

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/22-Aug-2023_S.D.Shinde_Vs_Govt.of_Maharastra1.pdf"]

Similar News