Supreme Court Restores Single Judge's Decision on Arbitration Award in Construction Dispute. The court held that the determination of compensation for delay under Clause 2 was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Superintending Engineer, thus excluding the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

In Favour of Accused
  • 17
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a construction agreement between the appellant and the Union of India regarding the construction of a Farmers’ Community Centre Building. The agreement included clauses for compensation for delays, which were to be determined by the Superintending Engineer. Following disputes, the matter was referred to arbitration, where the arbitrator awarded compensation to both parties. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the respondents' objections but allowed part of the contractor's claims. The Division Bench reversed this decision, asserting that a bona fide dispute existed regarding the contractor's liability for compensation, thus justifying arbitration. The Supreme Court was then approached to determine the jurisdiction of the arbitrator concerning compensation under Clause 2. The court found that Clause 2 explicitly required the Superintending Engineer to determine compensation, thereby excluding the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The court restored the Single Judge's decision, deleting the arbitrator's award of Rs.20,000 in favor of the Government. The appeal was allowed without costs.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction of Arbitrator - Compensation Determination - Arbitration Act, 1940, Sections 3, 14, 25 - The court held that the determination of compensation for delay under Clause 2 of the contract was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Superintending Engineer and not subject to arbitration. The decision emphasized that the clause provided a complete machinery for determining compensation, thus excluding the arbitrator's jurisdiction. (Paras 297-300).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to award compensation under Clause 2 of the contract, which mandated that compensation for delay be determined solely by the Superintending Engineer.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's decision, deleting the arbitrator's award of Rs.20,000 in favor of the Government, affirming that the determination of compensation under Clause 2 was outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

Law Points

  • Arbitration agreement
  • Compensation for delay
  • Jurisdiction of arbitrator
  • Finality of decision
  • Penal clause
  • Essence of contract
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1989 LawText (SC) (01) 52

Civil Appeal No. 1524 of 1982

1989-01-24

Ranganathan, S. Mukharji, Sabyasachi

1989 AIR 952, 1989 SCR (1) 288, 1989 SCC (1) 657, JT 1989 (1) 585, 1989 SCALE (1) 154

A.B. Rohtagi, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Miss S. Janani, Naresh K. Sharma, Miss A. Subhashini

Vishwanath Sood

Union of India & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to award compensation for delay in contract execution.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to restore the Single Judge's decision and challenge the Division Bench's ruling.

Filing Reason

Disputes arose from the construction agreement regarding compensation for delays.

Previous Decisions

The Single Judge dismissed the respondents' objections and allowed part of the contractor's claims, which was reversed by the Division Bench.

Issues

Jurisdiction of the arbitrator regarding compensation Finality of the Superintending Engineer's decision

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that Clause 2 mandated the Superintending Engineer to determine compensation, excluding arbitration. The respondent contended that Clause 2 was a penal clause allowing automatic deductions irrespective of default.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the determination of compensation for delay under Clause 2 was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Superintending Engineer, thus excluding the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

Judgment Excerpts

The question regarding the amount of compensation leviable under Clause 2 has to be decided only by the Superintending Engineer and no one else. The opening part of Clause 25 clearly excludes matters like those mentioned in Clause 2 in respect of which any dispute is left to be decided by a higher official of the Department.

Procedural History

The matter was initially referred to arbitration, where the arbitrator awarded compensation. The Single Judge dismissed objections and allowed part of the contractor's claims. The Division Bench reversed this decision, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration Act, 1940: 3, 14, 25, 30, 31, 33
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Property Tax Demand for Period Prior to Completion of Construction in Mysuru City Corporation. Property tax under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 can only be levied from the date of completion of buildin...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Bihar Land Reforms Act Case Due to Lack of Khas Possession. Land Vested in State Under Section 4 of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 as Appellants Not in Possession on Date of Vesting.