Supreme Court Reiterates Narrow Scope Of Interference Under Section 37 Arbitration Act

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Supreme Court Reiterates...

In Somdatt Builders – NCC – NEC (JV) vs. National Highways Authority of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2058/2012), the Supreme Court upheld the arbitral tribunal’s award, emphasizing minimal judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It reiterated that courts do not act as appellate bodies and can only set aside an arbitral award if it is perverse, irrational, or against public policy. Errors in interpreting contractual terms fall within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and are not grounds for interference, as reappreciation of evidence is not permitted. While an award can be set aside for patent illegality, such illegality must go to the root of the matter. The dispute involved price escalation and reimbursement of entry tax on cement, and the Court ruled in favor of restoring the arbitral award, reinforcing the pro-arbitration stance of Indian courts and the finality of arbitral decisions unless fundamental legal principles are violated.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Supreme Court Mandates Holistic Evaluation of Disabilities for MBBS Admissions, Rejects Mechanical Application of Disability Guidelines

In Omkar v. Union of India (2024 INSC 775), the Supreme Court held that MBBS admission for PwD candidates cannot be denied solely on the percentage of disability. Granting relief to a candidate with 45% speech and language disability, it ruled that assessment must consider the practical impact on course completion, not just numbers. Calling... Read more » Read more »

National Fertilizers Ltd and Another Vs. P.K.Khanna; 2005 (7) SCC 597

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a Departmental enquiry, the Decision/order by disciplinary authority, is required to give reasons only when it disagrees with finding of the enquiry officer and not when it concurs with that finding. Also, held that the mere quoting of what transpired would not amount to the giving of... Read more » Read more »

Has ‘Limitation’ Become Limitless? Rethinking the Boundaries for Initiating Arbitration Proceedings

In the recent ruling in M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Aptech Ltd., Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court undertook an exhaustive exercise of tracing the law and identifying the existing legislative vacuum regarding the limitation for both the initiation of arbitration proceedings and the filing of an application... Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.