Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana 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