Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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