In Brief
Atlanta Limited entered into a construction contract with the Union of India for a naval runway project. After the site became restricted due to a presidential inauguration, the company could not obtain access passes to complete work and its contract was terminated. The company sought arbitration and won substantial damages. However, the High Court's Division Bench partially reversed the award. The Supreme Court held that courts have limited power to interfere with arbitral awards under the 1940 Act—only for error on the face of the award or arbitrator misconduct. The arbitrator's findings on extension of time, wrongful termination, and machinery damages were reasonable and plausible. The Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the original award.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[ { "raw_citation": "NTPC Ltd. v. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd.", "case_name": "NTPC Ltd. v. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd.", "paragraph": "6", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "To buttress the argument on the scope of interference by courts in an arbitral Award passed under the 1940 Act, reliance has been placed on NTPC Ltd. v. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd." }, { "raw_citation": "Food Corporation of India v. Sreekanth Transport", "case_name": "Food Corporation of India v. Sreekanth Transport", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. And Another v. Balasore Technical School", "case_name": "Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Balasore Technical School", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "General Manager, Northern Railway and Another v. Sarvesh Chopra", "case_name": "General Manager, Northern Railway v. Sarvesh Chopra", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and Another", "case_name": "Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engineering Enterprises", "paragraph": "8, 14, 29", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "K.P. Paulose v. State of Kerala and Another", "case_name": "K.P. Paulose v. State of Kerala", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Quality Manufacturing Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corporation", "case_name": "Quality Manufacturing Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corporation", "paragraph": "10, 15", "treatment": "followed", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "The consistent view taken in several judicial pronouncements is that the Court does not sit in appeal over an Award passed by an Arbitrator and the only grounds on which it can be challenged are those that have been specified in Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, namely, when there is an error on the face of the Award or when the learned Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself or the proceedings." }, { "raw_citation": "Assam State Electricity Board and Others v. Buildworth Private Limited", "case_name": "Assam State Electricity Board v. Buildworth Private Limited", "paragraph": "11", "treatment": "followed", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "Matters relating to the construction of a contract lie within the province of the Arbitral Tribunal. Moreover, in the present case, the view which has been adopted by the arbitrator is based on evidentiary material which was relevant to the decision. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which could have warranted the interference of the court within the parameters available under the Arbitration Act, 1940." }, { "raw_citation": "State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd. And Another", "case_name": "State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd.", "paragraph": "12", "treatment": "followed", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "The arbitrator is the final arbiter for the dispute between the parties and it is not open to challenge the award on the ground that the arbitrator has drawn his own conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts." }, { "raw_citation": "Sudarshan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala, (1989) 2 SCC 38", "case_name": "Sudarshan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala", "cited_year": "1989", "paragraph": "12", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "reported" }, { "raw_citation": "Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and Another", "case_name": "Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India", "paragraph": "13", "treatment": "followed", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "By reason of a long catena of cases, it is now a well-settled principle of law that reappraisal of evidence by the court is not permissible and as a matter of fact exercise of power by the court to reappraise the evidence is unknown to proceedings under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act." }, { "raw_citation": "Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and Another", "case_name": "Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar", "paragraph": "13", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions, (2003) 7 SCC 396", "case_name": "State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions", "cited_year": "2003", "paragraph": "15", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "reported" }, { "raw_citation": "Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Company v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 409", "case_name": "Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Company v. Union of India", "cited_year": "2010", "paragraph": "15", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "reported" }, { "raw_citation": "Oswal Woolen Mills Limited v. Oswal Agro Mills Limited, (2018) 16 SCC 219", "case_name": "Oswal Woolen Mills Limited v. Oswal Agro Mills Limited", "cited_year": "2018", "paragraph": "15", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "reported" } ]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.