LexM/S. NAVODAYA MASS ENTERTAINMENT LTD. versus M/S. J.M. COMBINES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1098 M/S. NAVODAYA MASS ENTERTAINMENT LTD. v. MIS. J.M. COMBINES (Civil Appeal Nos. 7128-7129 of 2011) AUGUST 26, 2014 [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Arbitration - Award by arbitrator- Scope of interference · - Held: Is limited - Once arbitrator has applied his mind to C the matter before him, the Court is not justified in reappraising the material on record and substituting its own view in place of the Arbitrator's view - Even if two views are possible, the view taken by the Arbitrator would prevail - It is only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or Arbitrator D has not followed the statutory legal position, then and then only it would be justified in interfering with the award published by the Arbitrator- On facts, on perusal of the clauses of the Agreement, the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court while affirming the award cannot ·be said to be E perverse - Award passed by the arbitrator upheld. Dispute arose between the parties. In terms of the agreement, an arbitrator adjudicated upon the dispute and published an award',.The respondent c~allenged the award before the High Court with regard to the F disallowed claim and the appellant challenged the entire award before the High Court uls. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed both the applications .. In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal G filed by the appellant but allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent. The -Division Bench of .the High Court affirmed 'the award of the Arbitrator, holding that the appellant having failed to make the payment of the dues, H 1098 NAVODAYA MASS ENTERTAINMENT LTD. v. J.M. 1099 COMBINES as agreed to between the parties, cannot deny the lawful A claim of the respondent. Hence the instant appeals Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The scope of interference of the Court is very limited. Court would not be justified in reappraising B the material on record and substituting its own view in place of the Arbitrator's view. Where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or the Arbitrator has not followed the statutory legal position, then and then only it would be justified in interfering with the award C published by the Arbitrator. Once the Arbitrator has applied his mind to the matter before him, the Court cannot reappraise the matter as if it were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view taken by the Arbitrator would prevail. [Para 6] [1103-C-E] D Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. L.K. Ahuja (2004) 5 SCC 109; Ravindra & Associates vs. Union of India (2010) 1 SCC 80; Madnani Construction Corporation Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 549; Associated E Construction vs. Pawanhans Helicopters Limited (2008) 16 SCC .128; Satna Stone & Lime Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 14 sec 785 - relied on. 1.2. On perusal of the clauses of the said Agreement, in particular clauses 3 & 5 of the Agreement, it is found F that the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to be perverse. Furthermore, the appellant never terminated the Agreement or : requested the first respondent to take back the machinery. At this stage it would not be proper to express G . further opinion in the matter when the matter/dispute has already been concluded by the Arbitrator and the award '.has been affirmed by the High Court. Under these ' circumstances, there is no merit in these appeals. [Para 7 ,8) [1103-G-H; 1104-A-B] H A B c D E 1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R. Case Law Reference: (2004) 5 sec 109 Relied on Para 6 (2010) 1 sec 80 Relied on Para 6 (2010) 1 sec 549 Relied on Para 6 (2008) 1 s sec 128 Relied on Para 6 (2008) 14 sec 785 Relied on Para 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7128-7129 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2009 of Madras High Court in OSA No. 34 of 2009 and OSA No. 140 of 2009. Jos Chiramel, Anish Kumar Gupta, Pankaj Kumar Dua for the Appellant. G. Umapathy, Rakesh K. Sharma, S. Ramsubramanian for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHAN!?RA GHOSE, J. 1. These appeals have been filed assailing the common judgment and order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the Madras High Court in O.S.A. Nos.34 F of 2009 and 140 of 2009
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.