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 Restores 3-Year Advocacy Experience Requirement for Judicial Service Entry

In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court, led by CJI BR Gavai, mandated a minimum of 3 years’ advocacy practice for candidates seeking entry-level judicial posts, restoring the pre-2002 requirement. The Court held that first-hand courtroom experience is crucial for judicial competence and cannot be replaced by academic knowledge... Read more » Read more »

Shajahan Vs. State, (2018) 13 SCC 347

The court observed that, during the process of performing dacoity, if a dacoit murders a person, all the co-dacoits will also be held liable under section 396 IPC, even if they did not participate in the killing, and were only a part of the dacoity. Both 302 and 396 IPC have the same obligations for... Read more » Read more »

M/s. Shriram Investments Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai (2024 INSC 760)

The appellant initially filed a return in November 1989 and revised it twice. The Income Tax Officer rejected the second revised return, declaring that it was barred by limitation u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which only allows a revised return to be filed before the earlier of two dates – one year... 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.