Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2024 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 407 - SUPREME COURTReimbursement of additional expenditure incurred due to an increase in the rates of royalty and associated sales tax on soil, sand and crushed stone aggregates - Non-payment for executed work of embankment with soil/pond ash for the initial 150 mm depth stripped in accordance with the requirements of the contract - Reimbursement of additional costs incurred due to an increase in the forest transit fee rates - scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act - HELD THAT:- This Court, in the case of UHL POWER COMPANY LTD. VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VERSUS UHL POWER COMPANY LTD. [2022 (1) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT] held that the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 is relatively narrow and the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is all the more circumscribed. The Division Bench held that the imposition of a tax or upward revision of an already existing tax or levy through subsequent legislation is admittedly akin to the levy of additional royalty. The Division Bench relied upon a decision of the same Court in the case of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS M/S ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED [2015 (4) TMI 1096 - SUPREME COURT]. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment held that the claim made on account of the increase in royalty, sales tax, forest transit fee, etc., was covered in favour of the respondent by the said decision. Whether the claim for the construction of embankment forms part of the activity of clearing and grubbing and was not payable as embankment work? - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench held that nothing is shown that indicates that the construction of the embankment can be said to have been done in a manner where the lower part of the embankment is made only by carrying out the activity of backfilling. The High Court also noted that the appellant sought to make deductions after initially paying the amounts for the embankment. The Division Bench was right in holding that the majority opinion of technical persons need not be subjected to a relook, especially when the learned Single Judge had also agreed with the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have examined the challenge to the award within four corners of limitation imposed by Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. The view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be found fault with. There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
|