Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

Court U/S 37 of Arbitration Act only three options: Confirming the award; Setting aside the award; and Rejecting the application: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, has restored the original arbitral award in the case of S.V. Samudram vs State of Karnataka & Anr, while underscoring the limited scope of judicial intervention in matters of arbitration. The decision dated 4th January 2024 has set a precedent for future arbitration-related cases, particularly highlighting the sanctity of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

The apex court's ruling came in response to a civil appeal challenging the High Court of Karnataka's judgment, which had confirmed the Senior Civil Judge's decision to modify the arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The contractor, S.V. Samudram, had raised claims for financial losses incurred due to delays in construction work, attributing these delays to lapses by the State authorities.

In their observation, the Supreme Court noted, "The Court under Section 37 had only three options: Confirming the award of the Arbitrator; Setting aside the award as modified under Section 34; and Rejecting the application(s) under Section 34 and 37." This critical observation highlights the court's stance on the limited judicial review of arbitral awards.

The judgment meticulously discussed the role of the judiciary in arbitration cases, emphasizing that courts should refrain from re-appreciating the merits of arbitral awards. The bench restored the original award passed by the Arbitrator on 18th February 2003, ruling that the lower courts' intervention in modifying the award was inappropriate and beyond the permissible scope under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Date of Decision: 4th January 2024

S.V. SAMUDRAM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

 

Latest Legal News