LexCONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LIMITED versus SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1846 : 2025 INSC 574 Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. Software Technology Parks of India (Civil Appeal No. 5383 of 2024) 28 April 2025 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court upholding the arbitral award. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.34 and 37 – Application for setting aside arbitral awards – Dispute between the parties regarding delay in completion of the construction contract – Respondent-contracting authority deducted liquidated damages from the contractual dues of the appellant-contractor, along with other deduction and paid balance amount to appellant – Initiation of arbitral proceedings by the appellant challenging deduction of liquidated damages – Arbitral award by the arbitrator upholding the deduction of liquidated damages – Petition u/s.34 by the appellant to set aside the arbitral award – Allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the award holding that the appellant had completed the work during the extended time granted by the respondent, thus there was no delay – However, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Judge – Correctness: Held: An arbitral award is not liable to be interfered with only on the ground that the award is illegal or is erroneous in law which would require re-appraisal of the evidence adduced before the arbitral tribunal – If two views are possible, no scope for the court to re-appraise the evidence and to take the view other than the one taken by the arbitrator – View taken by the arbitral tribunal is ordinarily to be accepted and allowed to prevail – Scope of interference in arbitral matters is only confined to the extent * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1847 Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. Software Technology Parks of India envisaged u/s.34 – Proceedings u/s.34 are summary in nature and not like a full-fledged civil suit or a civil appeal – Award cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provisions of law or s.34 or the terms of the agreement – Role of the court u/s.34 is a restrictive jurisdiction and has to be invoked in a conservative manner – Arbitral autonomy must be respected and judicial interference should remain minimal otherwise it will defeat the very object of the 1996 Act – There was an ex post facto approval on the part of the respondent – Appellant continued with the contract work even after the extended period had expired – All throughout respondent had put the appellant to notice that notwithstanding extension of time it reserved the right to levy liquidated damages – Single Judge went beyond the grounds provided in s.34 to set aside the arbitral award and exceeded jurisdiction – No justification for setting aside the arbitral award by taking a different view which is certainly a possible and plausible view – Different interpretation of the clause of the contract other than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal is possible but that will not bring the challenge to the arbitral award within the four corners of s.34 – Division Bench justified in reversing the order of Single Judge u/s.37 – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.55, 73, 74. [Paras 22-24, 28] List of Acts Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Contract Act, 1872. List of Keywords Arbitral award; Challenge to arbitral award; Delay in completion of construction project; Liquidated damages; Deduction of liquidated damages; Scope of interference u/s.37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act; Scope of interference u/s.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act; Extension of time; Ex post facto approval; Consequences of breach of contract; Appellate provision; Award illegal or erroneous in law; Restrictive jurisdiction; Invoked in conservative manner; Minimal judicial interference; Judge exceeded jurisdiction; Arbitral autonomy. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5383 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in OSA No. 157 of 2019 1848 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: S.S. Rajesh, K.S. Mahadevan, Ms. Swati Bansal, Rangarajan R., Aravind Gopinathan, Rajesh Kumar. Advs. for the Respondent: Vinay Mohan Sharma, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Mrs. Arti Anupriya, Kartikey, Paras Juneja, Vineet Yadav, Amir Yadav, Vinay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.