Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

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"]

Latest Legal News