Arbitral Award Can’t Be Challenged On Ground That Arbitrator Has Failed To Appreciate Facts

Case: Atlanta Limited Thr. Its Managing Director v. Union of India Represented By Chief Engineer Military Engineering Service

Corum: Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 1533 of 2017

Court Observation: “It is also a well-settled principle of law that challenge cannot be laid to the Award only on the ground that the Arbitrator has drawn his own conclusion or failed to appreciate the relevant facts. Nor can the Court substitute its own view on the conclusion of law or facts as against those drawn by the Arbitrator, as if it is sitting in appeal.”

“We are of the opinion that once the learned Sole Arbitrator had interpreted the clauses of the contract by taking a particular view and had gone to great length to analyse several reasons offered by the appellant-claimant to justify its plea that it was entitled for extension of time to execute the contract, the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat over the said decision as an Appellate Court and seek to substitute its view for that of the learned Arbitrator.”

“The aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Appellate Court is manifestly erroneous and flies in the face of the settled legal position that the Arbitrator is the final arbiter of the disputes between the parties and it is not open to a party to challenge the Award on the ground that he has drawn his own conclusions or has failed to appreciate certain facts. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court to assign to itself, the task of construing the terms and conditions of the contract and its provisions and take a view on certain amounts awarded in favour of a party… …It was beyond the domain of the Appellate Court to have examined the reasonableness of the said reasons by reappreciating the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion.”

Previous Posts

Lis Pendens – Transfer Of Property Not Void Just Because It Is Made During Pendency Of Suit; But Subject To Outcome Of Case: Supreme Court

Rules Taking Away Vested Rights Of Employees Retrospectively Violate Articles 14 & 21 Of Constitution: Supreme Court In Bank Pensioners Case

Subordinate Legislation/Statutory Rules Also A ‘Law’ Under Section 23 Contract Act: Supreme Court

High Court Cannot Enter Into Merits Of The Claim In An Appeal Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court

Guarantor Whose Guarantee Stands Invoked By Any Creditor Barred From Giving Resolution Plan, Though Insolvency Initiated By Another Creditor: SC On-Sec 29A(h) IBC

Delay In Filing Appeal Before DRT Against Recovery Officer Order Cannot Be Condoned U/Sec 5 Limitation Act: Supreme Court Download Judgement

Keywords

Arbitral Award, Arbitrator