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 non-speaking award in contractor's favor against Government, clarifies errors vs. jurisdiction.</h1> <h3>State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Versus R.V. Rayanim and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld a non-speaking award in favor of a contractor against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, dismissing challenges to its validity. ... - Issues:1. Validity of a non-speaking award by an arbitrator2. Jurisdiction of the arbitrator in awarding damages for escalation of costs and expensesAnalysis:Issue 1: Validity of a non-speaking award by an arbitratorThe case involved a dispute between a contractor and the Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding various claims made by the contractor under an agreement. The arbitrator issued a non-speaking award in favor of the contractor, awarding a consolidated amount of &8377; 19.39 lakhs. The contractor sought to enforce the award, but the petitioner challenged it, arguing that a non-speaking award is invalid. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that a non-speaking award cannot be set aside. The Supreme Court held that the validity of a non-speaking award had been settled in previous cases and was no longer a sustainable contention. The Court emphasized that in matters of challenging an award, one must differentiate between errors on the face of the record and the arbitrator exceeding jurisdiction. In this case, as the award did not exceed the arbitrator's jurisdiction, the challenge based on it being a non-speaking award was dismissed.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the arbitrator in awarding damages for escalation of costs and expensesThe petitioner argued that the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by awarding damages based on escalation of costs and prices, which were not within the parties' agreement. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the award and found that the arbitrator had considered the claim of escalation but did not expressly award any amount for it. The Court clarified that unless an item or amount awarded by the arbitrator was beyond their jurisdiction, it cannot be considered an error on the face of the record. The Court stated that the arbitrator's consideration of the claim did not automatically make the award invalid. As the arbitrator did not explicitly award any amount for escalation, the Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the contention that the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction in awarding damages for escalation was dismissed.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the non-speaking award and rejected the challenges raised by the petitioner regarding its validity and the jurisdiction of the arbitrator in awarding damages for escalation of costs and expenses. The special leave petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were allowed to withdraw the awarded sum without the need for security.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
