Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 254 - HC - Companies LawRecourse against arbitral award u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Difference pertaining to the quantum of deduction on exemption from customs duties and other indirect taxes granted by the Government of India in relation to the project – The Tribunal was of the view that the respondent is entitled to deductions in excess of the amount on the basis of the “actual benefits” accrued to the petitioner on account of exemptions - Held that:- The Award merely seeks to interpret the contractual clauses - in such a situation, the scope of interference by the Court in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act is extremely limited - the Court would interfere with the interpretation of a contractual clause – as adopted by the Arbitral Tribunal, only if the adopted interpretation is such that it goes contrary to the express contractual terms; is such that no reasonable person would adopt, or; is patently perverse or absurd - In National Thermal Power Corporation V R.S. Avtar Singh & Co. and Anr. [2001 (9) TMI 1120 - DELHI HIGH COURT] – it has been held that when the view adopted by the arbitrator is a plausible view, then the court cannot interfere with the decision made. Thus, the court would interfere with the arbitral award, if the interpretation adopted in the making of the award is neither plausible, nor reasonable, and is in conflict with the terms of the contract agreement - If the interpretation adopted by the arbitrator is not the only possible view, it being one of the several plausible views - without any patent illegality in the conclusions drawn by the arbitrator, it is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this court under section 34 of the Act, to interfere with the award. If the saving on account of payment of taxes and duties exceeds the amount declared by the petitioner (of ₹ 1,290,000,000/- and ₹ 774,000,000/-), such saving on account of taxes and duties has to be passed on to the employer, i.e. the respondent - whether, or not, the petitioner indeed had to bear any amount of indirect taxes as claimed by it, is a matter of detail and would, at the highest, entitle the petitioner to adjustment to that extent - if the arbitrator has applied his mind to the pleadings, the evidence adduced before it, and the terms of the contract, the court would not reappraise the matter as if it were an appeal - Interpretation of contractual terms is a matter within the domain of the arbitrator - even if the interpretation adopted by the arbitrator is not the only possible view, it being a plausible view-without any patent illegality in the conclusions drawn by the arbitrator, it is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this court u/s 34 of the Act to interfere with the award on the aspect – Decided against petitioner.
|