LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus M/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 1 S.C.R. 312 STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. M/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Civil Appeal No. 2500 of 2001} JANUARY 8, 2010 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) Arbitration Act, 1940: s.30 - Jurisdiction of Court to set aside the award - Held: The jurisdiction of the Court under C s.30 is not appellate in nature - Court is not empowered to re-appreciate the evidence and examine the correctness of conclusions arrived at by the Umpire in considering an application for setting aside the award - It is also not open to the court to interfere with the award merely if in its opinion, D another view was possible - On facts, no reason to differ from aw<~rd of Umpire as he rightly considered the entire evidence. Jurisdiction: Supreme Court appointing new arbitrator and dimcted him to file award before it - New arbitrator filing award E in Supreme Court - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to entertain · the application for making the award a rule of the cowt as well as the objections, challenged - Held: Supreme Court has the jurisdiction. Dispute arose between the parties and the matter F was referred to arbitration. There was difference of opinion between the arbitrators and matter was referred to an Umpire. The Umpire entered into reference and passed an award. The appellant filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which G wine dismissed. In appeal, respondent also filed cross appeals claiming compound interest. High Court dismissed both the appeals. Both the parties came up before this Court. This H 312 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NAV BHARAT CONST. 313 COMPANY Court by judgment dated 4.10.2005 set aside the award A of the Umpire and the judgment of High Court, and appointed new Umpire and also clarified that it was not a new reference but continuation of the earlier proceeding and the Arbitration Act, 1940 would continue to apply. The new arbitrator passed an award. Before this B Court, appellant filed an application for making the award a rule of Court and at the same time the respondent filed an objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. An Interlocutory Application was also filed by the respondent challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to make the C award absolute and also to consider the objections raised by the respondent. Dismissing the IA and objections filed under Sections 30 and 33 and allowing the application for making the award a rule of the Court, the Court D HELD: 1. The judgment of this Court dated 4.10. 2005 made it clear in its operative part, that the award that would be passed by the Umpire must be filed in this Court. It was also clarified in the judgment itself that it was E not a case of a new reference but a continuation of the earlier proceeding and thus the Act would continue to apply. Therefore, this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the application of the appellant and also the -objectfons filed by the respondent. [Para 4] [319-F-H] Garwal Manda/ Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Krishna Travel Agency 2008 (6) SCC 741; Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Annapurna Construction 2008 (6) SCC 732; Mcdermott International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd and Others 2005 F (10) sec 353, referred to. G 2. Under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Court is not empowered to re-appreciate the evidence and examine the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Umpire in considering an application for setting H 314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 1 S.C.R. A aside the award. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 30 of the Act is not appellate in nature and the award passed by the Umpire cannot be set aside on the ground that it was erroneous. It is also not open to the court to interfere with the award merely because in the B opinion of the court, another view is equally possible. [Paras 6 and 7) (322-E-F; 323-D-E] 3.1. Perusal of judgment dated 4.10. 2005 shows that the claim Nos. 2 and 26 were elaborately considered and this Court in the said judgment came to a clear finding C with regard to Claim No.2 and 26 that the respondent would not be entitled to such claims. In this view of the matter, the Umpire was fully justified in not reconsidering the same while passing an award. [Para 5] (322-8-C] D Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. vs. Hindustan Cooper Ltd. 2005 (6) SCC 462; Food Corporation of India vs. Chandu Construction 2007 (4) SCC 697, relied on. 3.2. Since Claim Nos.4, 6, 9, 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.