Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

"The Arbitrator is the Sole Judge of Facts; Unless an Error of Law is Shown, Interference with the Award Should be Avoided" – Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator's Award in Road Construction Contract Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has restored an arbitration award in favor of M/S S.D. Shinde, concerning a road construction contract with the Government of Maharashtra Irrigation Department. The award had been previously set aside by the Bombay High Court.

The Bench comprising J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] and J. [DIPANKAR DATTA] emphasized the limited role of courts in arbitration matters, stating, "It is axiomatic that courts, while adjudging whether an arbitration award calls for interference has to be conscious that the arbitrator is the sole judge of facts; unless an error of law is shown, interference with the award should be avoided." [Para 23]

The court further noted that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the Indian Arbitration Act never extended beyond discerning if the award disclosed an “error apparent on the face of the award,” adding that the error of law must be apparent from the award itself or from a document actually incorporated therein [Para 24].

The judgment also dealt with the award of damages, where the court found that the arbitrators consciously eschewed the grant of compensation for loss of profit, and the sum awarded on various heads was fully supported by evidence. The court found the award of interest at 12% per annum neither implausible nor illegal [Para 22].

Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and the judgment of the trial court, restoring the award. The respondents were directed to ensure full payment in terms of the award to the appellant within eight weeks, and the appeals were allowed in these terms [Para 25].

 

Date of Decision: AUGUST 22, 2023

M/S S.D. SHINDE TR. PARTNER  vs GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Similar News