KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED versus CHENAB BRIDGE PROJECT UNDERTAKING

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 17-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 215 : 2023 INSC 742 
215
CASE DETAILS
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED
v.
CHENAB BRIDGE PROJECT UNDERTAKING
(Civil Appeal No. 2903 of 2023)
AUGUST 17, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND 
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : In the instant appeal, the legality of the order 
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an appeal u/s. 37 of the 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by which the concurrent fi ndings of the 
arbitral tribunal and that of the Single Judge of the High Court u/s. 34 of the Act 
rejecting all claims were set aside and certain claims were allowed, is challenged. 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34 and 37 – Arbitral 
award – Concurrent interpretations of the contractual clause pertaining 
to the disputes, by the arbitral tribunal and the Single Judge of the High 
Court u/s. 34 – Interference with, by the Division Bench in an appeal u/s. 
37 – Justifi cation: 
Held : Principle of interpretation of contracts adopted by the Division 
Bench of the High Court that when two constructions are possible, then courts 
must prefer the one which gives eff ect and voice to all clauses, does not have 
absolute application – Said interpretation is subject to the jurisdiction which 
a court is called upon to exercise – While exercising jurisdiction u/s. 37, the 
Court is concerned about the jurisdiction that the s. 34 Court exercised while 
considering the challenge to the Arbitral Award – Jurisdiction u/s. 34 is exercised 
only to see if the arbitral tribunal’s view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary – 
Reinterpretation of the contract on an alternative view does not arise – Division 
Bench exercising jurisdiction u/s. 37 cannot reverse an Award, much less the 
decision of a Single Judge – On facts, the Division Bench of the High Court 
erred in re-interpreting a contractual clause while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 37 
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
and setting aside the concurrent fi ndings of the arbitral tribunal and the Single 
Judge of the High Court – Award of the arbitral tribunal and the decision of the 
Single Judge of the High Court u/s. 34 cannot be termed as perverse or patently 
illegal  – Decision of the arbitral tribunal is a plausible view, and the Single 
Judge refrained from interfering with it u/s. 34 – Division Bench should not 
have interfered with these orders – Thus, the judgment of the Division Bench 
of the High Court is set aside and that of the Single Judge is restored. [Paras 
20, 22, 24 and 25]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34 and 37 – Scope of 
jurisdiction under :
Held : Jurisdiction of the court u/s. 37 is akin to the jurisdiction of the 
court u/s. 34 – Scope of interference by a court in an appeal u/s. 37, in examining 
an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is restricted and subject 
to the same grounds as the challenge u/s. 34 – Thus, the scope of jurisdiction 
u/s. 34 and s.37 is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction – Courts ought not 
to interfere with the arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner – Mere 
possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract does 
not entitle courts to reverse the fi ndings of the arbitral tribunal. [Paras 14 and 15]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd Jahadur Rahim & Ors AIR 1959 
SC 24 : [1959] SCR 1309; UHL Power Company Limited v. State 
of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 4 SCC 116; South East Asia Marine 
Engineering and Constructions Limited v. Oil India Limited (2020) 
5 SCC 164 : [2020] 4 SCR 254; Adani Power (Mudra) Limited v. 
Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. (2019) 19 SCC 
9; Satyanarayana Construction Company v. Union of India and Ors.
(2011) 15 SCC 101; Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma and 
Company, New Delhi (2008) 13 SCC 80 : [2008] 12 SCR 785; MMTC 
Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 163 : [2019] 3 SCR 1023; UHL Power 
Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 401; 
Dyna Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 
1; Ssangyong Engineering. & Construction Company Ltd. v. National 
Highways Authority of India (NHAI) (2019) 15 SCC 131 : [2019] 7 SCR 
522; Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan 
Nigam Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 236 : [2019] 8 SCR 728; Patel Engineering 
217
KONKAN RAILWAY CORP. LTD v. CHENAB BRIDGE PROJECT 
UNDERTAKING
Limited v. Nort

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