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

Supreme Court Emphasizes Technical Expertise of Arbitrators and the Role of Dissenting Opinions in Complex Disputes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a far-reaching judgment that redefines the landscape of contractual interpretation within the context of arbitration awards. The judgment, authored by Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, underlines the pivotal role of technical arbitrators and the significance of dissenting opinions in resolving intricate disputes. The decision asserts the importance of entrusting expert arbitrators with the task of addressing technical disagreements while respecting their informed interpretations.

The crux of the case pertained to a contractual dispute revolving around the interpretation of clauses governing embankment construction using approved materials and pond ash. The heart of the matter lay in the methodology for measuring and remunerating the construction work. Tribunals and dissenting arbitrators held opposing views on whether the measurement should be composite or separate. While the majority of experts favored the composite measurement approach, a minority contended for separate measurements. The court's ruling illuminated the value of experienced arbitrators in resolving technical divergences arising from contractual interpretation.

The judgment also delved into the role of dissenting opinions in arbitration proceedings involving multi-member tribunals. While dissenting opinions do not automatically assume the status of awards, the verdict underscored their significance in presenting alternative viewpoints. Nonetheless, the court clarified that dissenting opinions undergo a more limited examination compared to majority awards that face challenges.

The case extended its purview to the broader matter of judicial review of arbitration awards furnished with reasons, particularly in instances of contractual interpretation. The court underscored the need for courts to exercise restraint in intervening in such matters unless manifest errors or patent illegality are evident.

The Supreme Court's momentous decision, authored by Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, reinforces the critical role of expert arbitrators and well-reasoned interpretations in resolving intricate contractual disputes. The ruling stands as a testament to the courts' responsibility in respecting the specialized expertise of arbitrators while ensuring necessary oversight.

Date of Decision: August 24, 2023  

M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION  COMPANY LIMITED vs M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS  AUTHORITY OF INDIA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/24-Aug-2023_Hindustan_const_Co_VS_NHAI.pdf"]

Similar News

  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Income tax returns not a foolproof defence against a charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate under the PC – SC
  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
There could be no question of being permitted to reinstate after acceptance of the resignation.-SC
  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Appeal filed by Adani Gas Ltd seeking authorisation for city gas distribution network in three areas of Ahmedabad District in Gujarat with a cost of Rupees 10 lakhs. SC