Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34 and 37 – The respondent-North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO) filed three applications u/s. 34 of the Act, 1996 challenging the three arbitral awards dated 29.03.2016 – The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) vide common judgment dated 27.04.2018 rejected the applications and upheld the three arbitral awards – The respondent-NEEPCO filed appeals u/s. 37 of the Act, 1996 before the High Court and the same were allowed by judgment dated 26.02.2019 and the judgment dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was set aside – Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petitions, which were dismissed – After the dismissal of the SLPs, the petitioner filed review petitions before the High Court on the ground that the judgment of the High Court dated 26.02.2019 suffered from error apparent on the face of the record – The said review petitions were dismissed by the High Court by order dated 10.10.2019 – On appeal, held: In the instant case, the High Court in its judgment dated 26.02.2019 has referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Associated Builders at length and arrived at the correct conclusion that an arbitral award can be set aside u/s. 34, if it is patently illegal or perverse – This finding of the High Court was in conformity with the Supreme Court judgment in Ssangyong Engineering – The High Court held that no reasonable person could have arrived at a different conclusion while interpreting clauses 2.7 and 3.4 of the BoQ and clauses 32(ii) (a) 33(iii) of the conditions of contract – The case was decided on the ground that the arbitral award is a perverse award and on a holistic reading of all the terms and conditions of the Contract, the view taken by the Arbitrator is not even a possible view – The view of the High Court was correct – Thus, the High Court rightly dismissed the review petitions by the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 – Resultantly, all the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) (2019) 15 SCC 131 : [2019] 7 SCR 522; Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49; [2014] 13 SCR 895 – relied on.
Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another (2016) 4 SCC
696 : [2016] 1 SCR 266; Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others [1955] 1 SCR 267; Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput (1994) 2 SCC 753; Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur [1964] 5 SCR 174; Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 : [2003] 3 SCR 691; Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Western Geco International Limited (2014) 9 SCC 263 : [2014]
12 SCR 1; HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil and
Chemical Division) v. GAIL (India) Limted (2018) 12 SCC 471: [2017] 11 SCR 857; Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Others (2018) 6 SCC 287 : [2018] 2 SCR 829 – referred to.
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.