M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED versus M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 24-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 623 : 2023 INSC 768
CASE DETAILS
M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
v.
M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4658 of 2023)
AUGUST 24, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The issue is with respect to the 
interpretation of a contract condition, which required the measurement 
of quantities used for payment for embankment construction with soil or 
with pond; and the relevance of the dissenting opinion of the arbitrators.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34, 37 – Arbitral 
award – Scope of intereference u/ss. 34 and 37 – On facts,  three 
technical member arbitration passed an award which was unanimous 
on most questions while, on others, there was a dissenting view – 
Single Judge of the High Court held that the tribunal’s majority 
opinion refl ected a plausible and reasonable view, however, the 
Division Bench holding that the tribunal’s majority opinion, and 
award, were based on an implausible interpretation of the contract, 
set aside the award – Correctness:
Held: Awards which contain reasons, especially when they interpret 
contractual terms, ought not to be interfered with, lightly – Prevailing 
view about the standard of scrutiny- not judicial review, of an award, by 
persons of the disputants’ choice being that of their decisions to stand- 
and not interfered with, save a small area where it is established that such 
a view is premised on patent illegality or their interpretation of the facts 
or terms, perverse, as to qualify for interference – Judges tend to adopt a 
corrective lens; usually, commended for appellate review, however, it is 
unavailable when exercising jurisdiction u/s. 34 – Courts cannot, through 
process of primary contract interpretation, thus, create pathways to the 
623
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
kind of review which is forbidden u/s. 34 – So viewed, the Division 
Bench’s approach, of appellate review, u/s. 37, and conclusions drawn 
by it, resulted in displacing the majority view of the tribunal, as also 
the unanimous view – As long as the view adopted by the majority was 
plausible and there is no reason to hold otherwise, such a substitution 
was impermissible – Judgments passed by the High Court are set aside 
– Awards, which were the subject matter of challenge, and to the extent 
they were set aside, are upheld and restored. [Paras 22, 23, 28]
Arbitration – Arbitral award – Dissenting opinion of the 
arbitrator – Relevance of:
Held: Dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the 
majority award is set aside – It might provide useful clues in case there 
is a procedural issue which becomes critical during the challenge – When 
a majority award is challenged by the aggrieved party, the focus of the 
court and the aggrieved party is to point out the errors or illegalities in 
the majority award – Minority award or dissenting opinion only embodies 
the views of the arbitrator disagreeing with the majority – There is no 
occasion for the party aggrieved by the majority award, or, more crucially, 
the party who succeeds in the majority award, to challenge the soundness, 
plausibility, illegality or perversity in the approach or conclusions in the 
dissenting opinion – Dissenting opinion would not receive the level and 
standard of scrutiny which the majority award is subjected to – Thus, the 
so-called conversion of the dissenting opinion, into a tribunal’s fi ndings, 
in the event a majority award is set aside and elevation of that opinion 
as an award, would, be inappropriate and improper. [Para 27]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Corporation [2014] 13 
SCR 895; BOC India Ltd. v. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. [2007] 3 SCR 915; 
Indian Oil Corporation v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar [2022] 
16 SCR 450; PSA SICAL Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O. 
Chidambranar Port Trust [2021] 5 SCR 408; South East Asia Marine 
Engineering and Constructions Limited (SEAMEC Ltd) v. Oil India Ltd.
[2020] 4 SCR 254; M/s. Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. DMRC [2017] 
1 SCR 798; Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd v. DMRC [2021] 5 
625
M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. 
M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 
SCR 984; State of UP v. Allied Constructions [2003] Supp 2 SCR 55; 
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [2006] Suppl. 2 
SCR 409; MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd v. State of Rajasthan [2011]

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