TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the arbitral award and the order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be interfered with in appeal under Section 37 on the ground that the handling agent's claim for storage charges was an additional claim outside the contract and that the contract had been wrongly construed.
Analysis: The scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 is narrow, and an appellate court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award. Where the arbitral tribunal adopts one of two possible interpretations of the contract, the court will not interfere merely because another view is possible. The contract clauses and annexure were read together by the arbitrator to hold that temporary storage and transit-related arrangements formed part of the handling agent's contractual responsibilities and that no separate storage charge was payable beyond the consolidated rate. That construction was found to be reasonable and supported by reasons, and no ground of perversity or patent illegality was made out.
Conclusion: The challenge to the award and the order under Section 34 failed, and interference under Section 37 was not warranted. The appeal was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court will not interfere with an arbitral award that is based on a plausible and reasonable interpretation of the contract merely because an alternative interpretation is possible.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
