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>Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Affirming Successor Arbitrator's Jurisdiction and Validity of Proceedings</h1> <h3>Neelakantan & Bros. Construction Versus Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Salem and Ors.</h3> The SC rejected challenges to an arbitration award, finding the successor arbitrator had valid jurisdiction. The Court held that the petitioner's ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings.2. Violation of principles of natural justice.3. Consideration of all claims in the arbitration award.4. Validity of the arbitration award without reasoning provided.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the arbitratorThe case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings after a change in the arbitrator. The petitioner argued that the successor arbitrator had no jurisdiction to proceed without a fresh agreement. However, the Court held that the petitioner had knowledge of the change and actively participated in the proceedings before the successor arbitrator. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that parties, by acquiescing in the appointment with full knowledge, are precluded from objecting to the appointment as invalidating subsequent proceedings. The Court found that the arbitrator had the authority to pass the award, and the challenge on this ground was rejected both by the District Judge and the High Court.Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justiceThe petitioner contended that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the change in the arbitrator. However, the Court dismissed this objection, stating that attending and taking part in the proceedings with full knowledge of the circumstances amounted to acquiescence, as per legal principles outlined in various judgments. The Court emphasized that acquiescence defeated the right of the appellant at a later stage, and therefore, the objection based on natural justice was not entertained.Issue 3: Consideration of all claims in the arbitration awardThe petitioner raised concerns that the arbitration award did not consider all the claims presented. The Court held that it must be assumed that the arbitrator had considered all the evidence adduced before him unless there was a patent mistake of law or gross misstatement of facts resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Court found no indication of such errors and concluded that the award was unassailable in this regard.Issue 4: Validity of the arbitration award without reasoning providedThe arbitrator did not provide reasons for the award, which led to a contention that the award was bad. The Court clarified that unless there was a patent mistake of law or gross misstatement of facts resulting in a miscarriage of justice, the award remains unassailable. The Court cited legal precedents emphasizing that there is no appeal from the verdict of the arbitrator, and the Court cannot review the award unless there is a clear error of law or fact resulting in injustice.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, affirming the dismissal of the challenge to the arbitration award. The Court found that the award was not assailable based on the issues raised by the petitioner, and the petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
