37 – Justification:
Held : Principle of interpretation of contracts adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court that when two constructions are possible, then courts must prefer the one which gives effect and voice to all clauses, does not have absolute application – Said interpretation is subject to the jurisdiction which a court is called upon to exercise – While exercising jurisdiction u/s. 37, the Court is concerned about the jurisdiction that the s. 34 Court exercised while considering the challenge to the Arbitral Award – Jurisdiction u/s. 34 is exercised only to see if the arbitral tribunal’s view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary – Reinterpretation of the contract on an alternative view does not arise – Division Bench exercising jurisdiction u/s. 37 cannot reverse an Award, much less the decision of a Single Judge – On facts, the Division Bench of the High Court erred in re-interpreting a contractual clause while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 37 and setting aside the concurrent findings of the arbitral tribunal and the Single Judge of the High Court – Award of the arbitral tribunal and the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court u/s. 34 cannot be termed as perverse or patently illegal – Decision of the arbitral tribunal is a plausible view, and the Single Judge refrained from interfering with it u/s. 34 – Division Bench should not have interfered with these orders – Thus, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that of the Single Judge is restored. [Paras 20, 22, 24 and 25]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34 and 37 – Scope of jurisdiction under :
Held : Jurisdiction of the court u/s. 37 is akin to the jurisdiction of the court u/s. 34 – Scope of interference by a court in an appeal u/s. 37, in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is restricted and subject to the same grounds as the challenge u/s. 34 – Thus, the scope of jurisdiction u/s. 34 and s.37 is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction – Courts ought not to interfere with the arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner – Mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract does not entitle courts to reverse the findings of the arbitral tribunal. [Paras 14 and 15] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd Jahadur Rahim & Ors AIR 1959 SC 24 : [1959] SCR 1309; UHL Power Company Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 4 SCC 116; South East Asia Marine Engineering and Constructions Limited v. Oil India Limited (2020)
5 SCC 164 : [2020] 4 SCR 254; Adani Power (Mudra) Limited v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. (2019) 19 SCC 9; Satyanarayana Construction Company v. Union of India and Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 101; Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma and Company, New Delhi (2008) 13 SCC 80 : [2008] 12 SCR 785; MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 163 : [2019] 3 SCR 1023; UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 401; Dyna Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1; Ssangyong Engineering. & Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) (2019) 15 SCC 131 : [2019] 7 SCR 522; Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 236 : [2019] 8 SCR 728; Patel Engineering Limited v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (2020) 7 SCC 167 : [2020] 4 SCR 156; Vidya Drolia and Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1 : [2020] 11 SCR 1001; Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49 : [2014] 13 SCR 895 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.