Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

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