What is the scope of a court's interference in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

It is restricted and subject to the same grounds as a challenge under Section 34, and cannot travel beyond those restrictions. The court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and may interfere for patent illegality only where the illegality goes to the root of the matter and is not of a trivial nature; Section 37 grants a still narrower scope where the award has been upheld under Section 34.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.16 — s.34 — s.37 — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — ss.23, 28 — General Conditions of Contract — Clause barring damages for the employer's delay — Estoppel by conduct — New plea in appeal — Scope of interference — General Conditions of Contract — Delay by the employer — Estoppel by conduct — Held: A clause entitling a contractor only to extension of time, and not to damages or compensation, for the employer's delay binds a contractor who acts upon it. Having obtained extensions and undertaken to claim nothing other than escalation, he is estopped by conduct from challenging its validity. (¶19) Indian Contract Act, 1872 — ss.23, 28 — Plea raised for the first time — Held further: A contention that such a clause must be tested against Sections 23 and 28 cannot be raised for the first time in this appeal when it was urged neither in the petition under Section 34 nor in the appeal under Section 37. (¶24) General Conditions of Contract — Waiver — Correspondence on the claim — Held further: A letter requiring the claim for additional financial burden to be dealt with together with the proposal for extension of time is no waiver of the clause, the more so where the detailed claim called for was never submitted. (¶26) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.37 — Scope of interference — Held further: Interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34; the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award. Appeal dismissed. (¶27, 28)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/s. C & C Constructions Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India