Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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