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

Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2024 INSC 757

In Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2024 INSC 757, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the rejection of the appellant’s bid for failing to submit a Power of Attorney, while allowing another bidder to rectify a similar deficiency and awarding the contract to them, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14... Read more » Read more »

Reconciling Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments: High Courts Must Harmonize Rather Than Choose

Judicial precedents play a crucial role in shaping legal principles and ensuring consistency in the application of the law. However, there are instances where two Supreme Court judgments appear to contradict each other, creating a complex situation for High Courts. How should High Courts proceed in such cases? Can they selectively follow... Read more »

Chittarmal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 2 SCC 266

The court discusses the distinction between section 34 and 149 of IPC. Common object does not necessarily require proof of a prior meeting of minds or pre-consort, whereas common intention suggests activity in concert and presupposes the existence of a prepared plan, implying a prior meeting of minds. However, both deal with vicarious liability of... 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.