9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts findings in the facts and the interpretation of contract and interpretation of law) are far narrower. This court has in line of authorities previously held that such jurisdiction should be invoked rarely and in cases where it is apparent that the Arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings in terms of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. In the present case, this court is persuaded to hold that the High Court in proceeding to interpret the terms of the contract and applying them to the fact situation in the present case substituted its findings hereby entering the zone which was not permitted to it in regard to upsetting the award as far as it found in favor of the appellant contractor and also in allowing the counterclaim of ONGC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor countered this by stating that the revised price list was submitted on 27.1.1992, which ultimately prevailed. The other point of controversy pertains to the sum of Rs.12,21,436/- claimed by the contractor on account of the demolition of 27 hutments and the cost incurred invocation of the premises in its restoration for the purpose of the direction of the works in question. The Arbitrator by the award dated 13th November 2001, inter alia, ruled that the claim was justified in several counts. This included the two disputed items, namely, sums payable by the ONGC calculable from 14.03.1991. On both these items the Arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 18% P.A. from 10.10.1993 to 13.06.1996 and held that for the period 11.02.1996 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was concerned i.e. the amount claimed and awarded towards the demolition of the hutments and the cost incurred for the restoration of the site, the High Court was influenced largely by the undertaking or agreement that the parties had foregone any claim whatsoever on that count. The impugned judgment, on the face of the record, in this Court s opinion, is plainly erroneous. It is far too well established that the scope of interference by a court in the context of a challenge to an arbitration award is narrow. In the case of an appeal by a party is aggrieved by rejection of its objections, the Appellate Court s review power (especially to substitute its findings in the facts and the interpretation of contract and interpretation of law) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The present case is precisely one of the same type as the one before the Judicial Committee. The arbitrators have just awarded amounts to the contractor, against its claims, on Item Nos. 2 and 5. They make no reference to the contract or any of its clauses. Yet, the State contends that since these are items covered by certain terms of the contract, the Court should look at those terms and interpret them; if this is done, it is said, the State s interpretation is bound to be accepted and that apparently accepted by the arbitrators will be found to be wrong. It is this contention that has been accepted. This cannot be done. Even if, in fact, the arbitrators had interpreted the relevant clauses of the contract in making their award on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
