SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Konkan Railway Corporation Limited - Appellant
Versus
Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2903 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 5640 of 2023)
Decided On : 17-08-2023
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Appeal against arbitral award – Scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction – Courts ought not to interfere with arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner – Mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of contract does not entitle courts to reverse findings of Arbitral Tribunal – While exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of Act, Court is concerned about jurisdiction that Section 34 Court exercised while considering challenge to Arbitral Award – Jurisdiction under Section 34 of Act is exercised only to see if Arbitral Tribunal’s view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary – Accordingly, question of reinterpreting contract on an alternative view does not arise. (Paras 15 and 20)
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Appeal against arbitral award – Contract for construction of Railway bridge – Single Judge of High Court affirmed findings of Arbitral Tribunal – Reason for upholding decision of Tribunal is not that Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of Act is in complete agreement with interpretation of contractual clauses by Arbitral Tribunal – Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of Act kept in mind scope of challenge to Arbitral Award – Section 34 jurisdiction will not be exercised merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists – In appeal under Section 37 of Act, Division Bench of High Court took a different position – It opined that construction of clauses by Arbitral Tribunal was not even a possible view – Principle of interpretation of contracts adopted by Division Bench of High Court that when two constructions are possible, then courts must prefer one which gives effect and voice to all clauses, does not have absolute application – Division Bench exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of Act cannot reverse an Award, much less decision of a Single Judge, on the ground that they have not given effect and voice to all clauses of contract – Award of Arbitral Tribunal and decision of Single Judge of High Court under Section 34 of Act cannot be termed as perverse or patently illegal as concluded by Division Bench of High Court – Judgment and order of Single Judge in Arbitration Petition restored. (Paras 18, 19, 20, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal arises out of decision of Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, by which concurrent findings of Arbitral Tribunal and that of Single Judge of the High Court under Section 34 of the Act rejecting all claims were set aside and certain claims were allowed. This appeal by Konkan Railway Corporation Limited challenges legality of order passed by the Division Bench of High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of Act.
Findings of Court:
Decision of Arbitral Tribunal is a plausible view, and Single Judge refrained from interfering with it under Section 34 of the Act. Division Bench should not have interfered with these orders.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996,1[Hereinafter ‘the Act’.] by which the concurrent findings of the Arbitral Tribunal and that of the Single Judge of the High Court under Section 34 of the Act rejecting all claims were set aside and certain claims were allowed. This appeal by Konkan Railway Corporation Limited challenges the legality of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act.
2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows: The Respondent’s tender for construction of a bridge at KM 50/800, on the Katra-Laole section of Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla rail link, said to be the highest railway bridge in the world, was accepted by the Appellant, leading to the execution of the contract on 24.11.2004.
3. While the contract was in execution, disputes arose between the parties and through an agreement dated 28.02.2012, a Standing Arbitral Tribunal was constituted for resolution of disputes. The respondent raised 35 claims which were clubbed and classified as twelve disputes. The present proceedings arise out of the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal deciding three disputes, being Dispute I (relating to Claim 9), Dispute III (relating to Claims 12, 22 and 28), and Dispute IV (relating to Claims 13, 23 and 29).
4. The Arbitral Tribunal by its award dated 15.11.2014 considered the three disputes and rejected all the claims. The Respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Act. The Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the Award and proceeded to dismiss the challenge under Section 34 of the Act. The decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was appealed by the Respondent under Section 37 of the Act, and the Division Bench of the High Court, by the order impugned herein, partly allowed the appeal in the following manner. The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal with respect to Dispute I, allowed the appeal with respect to the remaining two disputes (Disputes III and IV), and thereby set aside the concurrent findings as regards these disputes. As there is no controversy with respect to Dispute I, we are called upon to examine the legality of the order with respect to Disputes III and IV.
5. The facts relevant for Dispute III are as follows: The contract in favour of the Respondent was entered into on 24.11.2004. At that time the Notification of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir dated 19.12.2003 exempted Entry Tax on earth-moving instruments. However, during the execution of the contract, on 25.01.2008, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir withdrew the exemption notification. Consequently, the Respondent raised claims for reimbursement of Rs. 1,32,29,771/- incurred on account of payment of Entry Tax.
6. In so far as Dispute IV is concerned, it relates to reimbursement of Toll Tax on machinery and materials. As per the extant policy in Jammu and Kashmir, the Toll Tax as applicable on the date of the submission of tender, that is 31.05.2004, was Rs. 400/- per MT. However, through four subsequent notifications issued under Jammu and Kashmir Levy of Toll Tax Act, 1998, the taxes were progressively increased to Rs. 650/- per MT. Consequently, the Respondent raised a claim of Rs. 5,23,279/-, incurred on account of increase in toll tax during the subsistence of the contract.
7. Claims under Dispute III as well as Dispute IV were to be considered in terms of the relevant clauses of the contract, which are Clauses 5.1.2, 7.1.1, 7.1.2, and 11.7. These clauses are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference. Relevant part of Clause 5 of Chapter 5, titled ‘Sales Tax, Turn Over Tax/Local Tax, Duties etc’, is as under :
“Clause 5.1 Sales Tax/Turn Over Tax/Local Tax, Duties Etc.
...
Clause 5.1.2 Sales Tax including turn over tax on works contract, octroi, royalty, toll tax, Duties/Le
Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd Jahadur Rahim & Ors.
UHL Power Company Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh
South East Asia Marine Engineering and Constructions Limited v. Oil India Limited
Adani Power (Mudra) Limited v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.
Satyanarayana Construction Company v. Union of India and Ors.
Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma and Company, New Delhi
UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 2 SCC(Civ) 401 – Relied [Para ]
Dyna Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1 – Relied [Para 15]
Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.
Patel Engineering Limited v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited
Appeal against arbitral award – Scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction – Mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpr....
Appeal against arbitral award – It is for Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon terms of a contract.
(1) Appeal against arbitral award – Arbitral award may not be interfered with if view taken by Arbitrator is a possible view based on facts – Court cannot undertake independent assessment of merits o....
Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of perversity or violation of public policy.
The judiciary's role in arbitration is to ensure courts do not reassess merits but identify manifest errors and whether vital evidence was overlooked by the arbitral tribunal.
The interpretation of a contract is within the scope and jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, and the interference is only warranted when the Tribunal has traveled beyond the terms of the contract ....
The court affirmed that compensation under Article XXXVI of the Concession Agreement is warranted when a change in law, such as demonetization, disrupts contractual rights, allowing for reasonable lo....
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.