TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Arbitrator's Award Reinstated: Limited Judicial Interference in Contract Disputes Affirmed; Contractor's Appeal Succeeds.</h1> <h3>D.D. Sharma Versus U.O.I.</h3> D.D. Sharma Versus U.O.I. - 2004 AIR 2631, 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 767, 2004 (5) SCC 325, 2004 (5) SCALE 195 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the conditional offers and rebates.2. Jurisdiction and scope of the Arbitrator's decision.3. High Court's interference with a non-speaking award.Summary:1. Validity of the Conditional Offers and Rebates:The contractor made conditional offers and rebates in letters dated 25.08.1983 and 22.11.1983, contingent upon receiving a 10% mobilization advance and the work being allotted as a whole. The Union of India failed to meet these conditions, leading to disputes over the rebates. The Arbitrator partially allowed the contractor's claims for rebates and damages due to the delay in handing over the site.2. Jurisdiction and Scope of the Arbitrator's Decision:The Arbitrator, chosen by the parties, had the authority to interpret the contract and determine the claims. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Arbitrator's decision is final unless it falls within the grounds for setting aside an award u/s 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitrator considered all relevant documents and evidence, and there was no indication that he exceeded his jurisdiction or ignored material documents.3. High Court's Interference with a Non-Speaking Award:The High Court partially set aside the Arbitrator's award, questioning the consideration of the conditional offers. However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with a non-speaking award, as the Arbitrator's decision should be accepted at face value unless proven otherwise. The Supreme Court reiterated that the court's jurisdiction is limited to checking if the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction or committed misconduct.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the Arbitrator's award. The contractor's appeal was allowed, and the Union of India's appeal was dismissed. The Arbitrator's interpretation of the contract and the conditional offers was upheld, affirming the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitration awards.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
