JAN DE NUL DREDGING INDIA PVT. LTD. versus TUTICORIN PORT TRUST

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 07-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 86 : 2026 INSC 34
Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. 
v. 
Tuticorin Port Trust
(Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2026)
07 January 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court in exercise of powers 
u/s.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was justified to 
interfere with the judgment and order of the Single Judge of the 
High Court passed u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 
1996 upholding the award of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Major Port Trust 
Act, 1963 – The respondent-Tuticorin Port Trust undertook a 
major dredging project and issued Notice Inviting Tender – 
The appellant-Dredging India was one of the bidders and the 
contract was awarded to it – The appellant-Dredging India 
completed work project much ahead of schedule – Disputes 
arose between the parties relating to alleged non-payment 
and under-payment of dues as raised under the final bill – 
Arbitration clause was invoked by the the appellant-Dredging 
India – The Arbitral Tribunal vide its award dated 18.10.2014 
inter alia awarded an amount of Rs.14,66,04,216/- – The arbitral 
award was challenged by the respondent-Port Trust u/s.34 of 
the 1996 Act – The award of the Arbitral Tribunal was upheld 
by the Single Judge of the High Court – However, the High 
Court directed for the deletion of the claim awarded by the 
Arbitral Tribunal in respect of Claim No.7 i.e. idle charges for 
the Backhoe Dredger (BHD) – Correctness:
Held: In the instant case, the power to award compensation for 
idle time of the equipment including Backhoe Dredger is traceable 
to Clause 51.1 of the Lease Agreement and therefore the Arbitral 
Tribunal was not wrong in interpreting the clauses so as to make an 
award in favour of the appellant-Dredging India under Claim No.7 – 
* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 
87
Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust
In such a situation, the interpretation given by the Arbitral Tribunal 
is apparently a plausible view and was rightly not disturbed by the 
Single Judge in exercise of power u/s.34 of the Act – Therefore, in 
appeal u/s.37 of the Act, the said reasoning could not have been 
disturbed so as to permit a different view – The interpretation given 
by the Arbitral Tribunal had to be accepted by the Appellate Court – 
In the case at hand, the Arbitral Award contains logical reasons in 
construing the various clauses of the License Agreement and the 
view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal had been accepted by the court 
u/s.34 of the Act as a reasonable and a possible view – The License 
Agreement permits deployment of Backhoe Dredger (BHD) without 
specifying whether it is a minor or a major dredger – This Court is 
of the opinion that the Appellate Court manifestly erred in law in 
interfering with the judgment and order of the Single Judge of the 
High Court passed u/s.34 of the Act so as to disturb the arbitral 
award in respect of Claim No.7. [Paras 46, 48, 49, 50]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Whether the 
Challenge to the award, in the instant case was on any of the 
grounds enumerated u/s.34 or on the ground that the award 
of the Claim No.7 is against the fundamental policy of India 
or the basic notions of morality or justice:
Held: In the case at hand, a challenge to the award of the Arbitral 
Tribunal before the Single Judge of the High Court would reveal 
that it was confined to Claim No.7 and that too on the merits of 
the same and not on the ground of violation of the public policy of 
India or that it is against the basic notions of morality or justice – 
The Arbitral Tribunal, in making the award, has interpreted the 
various clauses of the License Agreement so as to hold that the 
appellant-Dredging India is entitled for appropriate compensation 
with regard to idling of its Backhoe Dredger (BHD) for want of 
non-supply of site within time – Apparently, the challenge to the 
award of the Arbitral Tribunal was neither on any of the grounds 
enumerated u/s.34, nor even on the ground that the award of 
the Claim No.7 is against the fundamental policy of India or the 
basic notions of morality or justice – That being the position, the 
award of the Arbitral Tribunal was not liable to be disturbed u/s.34 
of the Act and was rightly not disturbed – It is settled in law that 
the appellate powers u/s.37 are limited to the scope of s.34 and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.