Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Arbitration Matter — Fresh Adjudication Ordered. The court directed a fresh adjudication of all claims and counterclaims by a Sole Arbitrator due to incorrect inferences drawn by the previous tribunal.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and M/s. Progressive Construction Ltd. regarding an arbitral award. The Single Judge had set aside the award passed by a three-member tribunal, citing incorrect inferences and lack of consideration of vital evidence. This led to cross appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which were confined to specific claims by the Division Bench. The NHAI challenged the interim order of the Division Bench. During the appeal, both parties agreed to a fresh adjudication of all claims before a Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court. The court directed the Indian Council of Arbitration to conduct the proceedings afresh and appointed Justice G. S. Singhvi as the Sole Arbitrator. The court emphasized the need for the arbitrator's independence and ability to complete proceedings within the statutory period. The previous order of the Delhi High Court was set aside, rendering the appeals infructuous. The appeal was allowed with directions for fresh arbitration proceedings.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Setting Aside of Award - Incorrect Inferences - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 - The Single Judge set aside the arbitral award due to incorrect inferences drawn by the tribunal and failure to consider vital evidence. The court directed fresh adjudication of all claims and counterclaims by a Sole Arbitrator appointed by the court. Held that the previous findings were insufficient and required reevaluation (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the interim order of the Division Bench was justified and the appropriate course of action for the arbitration proceedings.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the interim order of the Division Bench, and directed fresh arbitration proceedings to be conducted by a Sole Arbitrator.

Law Points

  • Arbitration proceedings
  • Sole Arbitrator appointment
  • Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Section 37 Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • Independence and impartiality of arbitrator
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (02) 265

Civil Appeal No. 542 of 2021

2021-02-12

Indu Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi

National Highways Authority of India

M/s. Progressive Construction Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the setting aside of an arbitral award.

Remedy Sought

NHAI sought to challenge the interim order of the Division Bench.

Filing Reason

The Single Judge set aside the arbitral award citing incorrect inferences.

Previous Decisions

The Single Judge's order and the Division Bench's interim order.

Issues

Validity of the interim order by the Division Bench Appropriate course of action for arbitration proceedings

Submissions/Arguments

NHAI argued against the findings of the Single Judge Progressive Construction Ltd. supported the Single Judge's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the need for a fresh adjudication of claims due to the previous tribunal's incorrect inferences and lack of consideration of vital evidence, ensuring the independence and impartiality of the appointed arbitrator.

Judgment Excerpts

The Single Judge has substantially set aside the Award dated 27.04.2016 We direct that the arbitral proceedings be conducted afresh by the Indian Council of Arbitration

Procedural History

The appeal arose from a judgment under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the Single Judge set aside the arbitral award, leading to cross appeals before the Division Bench.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 34, 37, 12, 26, 29A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Eviction Order Under MHADA Act — Petitioner's Construction Found Legal and Permissible. The Court held that the Competent Authority and Appellate Authority erred in ordering eviction without consid...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Compounding of NI Act Offence Despite Rejection by Magistrate — Full Payment of Cheque Amount Entities Accused to Compounding. The court held that once the cheque amount is paid, the Magistrate must permit compounding under...