Usually the Court is not required to examine the merits of the interpretation provided in the award by the arbitrator, if it comes to a conclusion that such an interpretation was reasonably possible – South East Asia Marine Engineering And Constructions Ltd. (SEAMEC LTD.) Vs. Oil India Ltd. – Supreme Court

The Court held that it is a settled position that a Court can set aside the award only on the grounds as provided in the Arbitration Act as interpreted in various judgments. It is also settled law that where two views are possible, the Court cannot interfere in the plausible view taken by the arbitrator supported by reasoning. That usually the Court is not required to examine the merits of the interpretation provided in the award by the arbitrator, if it comes to a conclusion that such an interpretation was reasonably possible. As held by the Supreme Court Court in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954 SC 44 that when the parties have not provided for what would take place when an event which renders the performance of the contract impossible, then Section 56 of the Contract Act applies. When the act contracted for becomes impossible, then under Section 56, the parties are exempted from further performance and the contract becomes void.

Related Posts

An application under section 11 or section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, for appointment of an arbitrator, will not be barred by pendency of an application under Section 8 of the Act in any suit, nor will the Designate of the Chief Justice be precluded from considering and disposing of an application under Section 11 or 15(2) of the Act – Vijay Kumar Sharma @ Manju Vs. Raghunandan Sharma @ Baburam & Ors. – Supreme Court

Arbitration-Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…

Read Post »

Scroll to Top