NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court “Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator's Decision, Rejects Challenge to Interpretation of Contract Clause

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the decision of an arbitrator in a dispute over the interpretation of a contract clause. The case, Central Warehousing Corporation v. Aqdas Maritime Agency Private Limited, saw the petitioner challenging the arbitrator's interpretation of Clause XII of the agreement.

The petitioner heavily relied on a prior Supreme Court decision in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited vs. Dewan Chand Ram Saran. They argued that this decision had been ignored by the lower courts dealing with remedies under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In its observation, the Supreme Court noted the following:

"In any case, assuming that Clause 9.3 was capable of two interpretations, the view taken by the arbitrator was clearly a possible if not a plausible one. It is not possible to say that the arbitrator had traveled outside his jurisdiction, or that the view taken by him was against the terms of the contract."

The Court further examined the relevant clause and the facts surrounding the case. After careful consideration, it concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation was a possible view based on the material on record.

As a result, the Special Leave Petitions challenging the arbitrator's decision were dismissed by the Supreme Court. This judgment emphasizes the significance of an arbitrator's discretion in interpreting contract clauses and highlights the importance of a thorough examination of the facts in arbitration cases.

Representing the petitioner in the case were Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Advocate, and Mr. Rahul Narayanan, Advocate on Record. The Bench consisted of HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL.

This ruling reaffirms the principle that arbitral awards are to be respected unless they are patently illegal, and their interpretation is a matter of fact and discretion for the arbitrator.              

Date of Decision: 26-09-2023                      

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION  vs AQDAS MARITIME AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED

Latest Legal News