Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

"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.

Latest Legal News