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

Ambience Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ambience Island Apartment Owners, (2021) 2 SCC 163

The Supreme Court held that the execution proceedings and original proceedings are separate and independent. An appeal under S. 23 of the Consumer Protection Act will not lie to Supreme Court against an order which has been passed in the course of execution proceedings. An appeal under S. 23 is maintainable against an order which... Read more » Read more »

Consent, Criminalisation, And Context: Evaluating The Case For Revising The Pocso Threshold

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) was enacted to address the widespread problem of child sexual abuse and to remedy the limitations of the Indian Penal Code in prosecuting such offences. The statute adopts a strict liability model that considers all persons below eighteen incapable of providing... Read more »

Supreme Court: No State-Specific Domicile in India, Strikes Down Domicile-Based PG Medical Reservations

In Tanvi Behl & Shrey Goel v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Article 5 of the Indian Constitution, all Indians have a single domicile—the “Domicile of India.” The concept of state or provincial domicile is not recognized in Indian law. This ruling was delivered while examining the... Read more » 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.