Back
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, S.RANGANATHAN, V.RAMASWAMI
Hindustan Construction Co. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
State Of J & K – Respondent
Key Points: - The appeal concerns whether a High Court can set aside or modify a non-speaking arbitration award on grounds related to contract interpretation (items 2 and 5) and on future interest (item 8) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court held that for non-speaking awards, the court's interventions are limited and cannot look beyond the face of the award to interpret contractual terms; the arbitrators’ interpretation of contract clauses should not be substituted by the court (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Clause 19 and clauses 1.28 and condition 32 of the contract were not clear enough to warrant interference; dewatering with multiple pumps was deemed a technical matter not to be adjudicated by the court (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court reversed the High Court/Division Bench decisions, reinstated the award, and directed decree in terms of the award, deeming that the award on items 2 and 5 could not be faulted on a face-of-the-award basis or for excess of jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) . - The landmark principle from Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. cited: error apparent on the face of the award must be identifiable from the award itself or incorporated documents, not from external contract interpretation (!) (!) .
Judgment
RANGANATHAN, J.:- The appellant company entered into a contract with the Public Works Department of the Jammu and Kashmir Government for the construction of a bridge on the River Chenab at Baradari. Certain disputes arose between them which were referred to arbitration in pursuance of a clause therefor contained in the contract. The two joint arbitrators made an award on 24th October, 1972. There were eight items of claim by the contractor which were put up for their consideration. They allowed fully the entire claim of the appellant on items Nos. 1 and 2 and totally rejected the claims under items Nos. 3 and 7. The rest of the claims were allowed in part.
2. There were further proceedings before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court under Ss. 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The learned single Judge made the award in respect of item Nos. 1, 4, 6 a Rule of Court but set aside the award in respect of items Nos. 2 and 5. The rejection of the claims. under items Nos. 3 and 7 was not challenged before him. On item 8, he held that the arbitrators could not have awarded future interest up to the date of payment of the amounts awarded. The contractors filed an appeal before the Divisio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
