# THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION LIMITED & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 9 S.C.R. 731
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-11-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8571 of 2022
- **Bench:** A. S. Bopanna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-v-m-s-sew-construction-limited-ors-36472
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Arbitration - Arbitral Award - In the instant case, the State
issued tender notice for construction of Masonry Dam and the
appellant-contractor was successful bidder - During the course
of work, the contractor requested for an alternate quarry which
request was denied and the matter was referred for arbitration -
Thereafter, the contractor made another request for another
alternate quarry (Mahuar Quarry) - Upon inspection, the
constituted committee approved the request and a conditional
permission was granted to the contractor - Despite conditional
permission, the contractor raised claim of Rs 5,51,03,040/-
towards escalated cost of transportation - The claim was rejected
by the authority but the same was accepted in arbitral proceeding
by the Arbitrator - High Court upheld the award - Hence instant
appeal - Held: A contractual clause which provides for the
finality of rates quoted by the Contractor and disallows any future
claims for escalation is conclusive and binding on the parties
and if the clause debarring future claims permits escalation
subject to certain conditions, and the conditions are satisfied,
which in the present case were actually satisfied as the
circumstances were beyond the control of the contractor, the
Contractor will have a right to claim escalation.
Contract: Government contracts - The rights and duties
of the parties to the contract subsist or perish in terms of the
contract itself - Even if a party to the contract is a governmental
authority, there is no place for discretion vested in the officers
administering the contract - Discretion, a principle within the
province of administrative law, has no place in contractual matters
unless, of course, the parties have expressly incorporated it as a
part of the contract - It is the bounden duty of the court while
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 731
731
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
interpreting the terms of the contracts, to reject the exercise of
any such discretion that is entirely outside the realm of the
contract.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Determination of the claim for escalation
depends on the construction of clause 3.11(A) of the contract,
which provides that the claim for escalation will not be
entertained unless there exist circumstances beyond the
control of the contract. Further, the claim is admissible only
upon the written order of the Superintending Engineer in
charge of the work. In instant case both conditions are satisfied.
In the first instance, the inspection report clearly indicates
that the original quarry is depleted of the sand and therefore
an alternative quarry is necessary for the execution of the
contract. Secondly, this is a circumstance which is certainly
beyond the control of the Contractor. Further, the permission
granted by the Superintending Engineer is in complete
satisfaction of the requirement of the clause. Therefore the claim
for escalation is in full satisfaction of the terms of the contract.
[Para 18][739-C-E]
2. A contractual clause which provides for the finality of
rates quoted by the Contractor and disallows any future claims
for escalation is conclusive and binding on the parties. If the
clause debarring future claims permits escalation subject to
certain conditions, no claim is admissible if the conditions are
not satisfied. However, if the conditions are satisfied, the
Contractor will have a right to claim escalation. This is a
contractual right. The right originates and subsists by virtue
of the contract itself. It is the duty of the Court, while
interpreting the contract to decipher the true and correct
meaning the parties intended and enforce the rights arising
out of the contract. Officers administering the contract will
not have any discretion whatsoever to admit or deny escalation
after the conditions specified in a contract are satisfied. [Para
22][740-C-E]
3. The Executive Engineer has acted beyond the scope
of clause 3.11(A). Under the clause, if a circumstance beyond
A
B
C

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
731
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION LIMITED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8571 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 18, 2022
[A. S. BOPANNA AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Arbitration - Arbitral Award - In the instant case, the State
issued tender notice for construction of Masonry Dam and the
appellant-contractor was successful bidder - During the course
of work, the contractor requested for an alternate quarry which
request was denied and the matter was referred for arbitration -
Thereafter, the contractor made another request for another
alternate quarry (Mahuar Quarry) - Upon inspection, the
constituted committee approved the request and a conditional
permission was granted to the contractor - Despite conditional
permission, the contractor raised claim of Rs 5,51,03,040/-
towards escalated cost of transportation - The claim was rejected
by the authority but the same was accepted in arbitral proceeding
by the Arbitrator - High Court upheld the award - Hence instant
appeal - Held: A contractual clause which provides for the
finality of rates quoted by the Contractor and disallows any future
claims for escalation is conclusive and binding on the parties
and if the clause debarring future claims permits escalation
subject to certain conditions, and the conditions are satisfied,
which in the present case were actually satisfied as the
circumstances were beyond the control of the contractor, the
Contractor will have a right to claim escalation.
Contract: Government contracts - The rights and duties
of the parties to the contract subsist or perish in terms of the
contract itself - Even if a party to the contract is a governmental
authority, there is no place for discretion vested in the officers
administering the contract - Discretion, a principle within the
province of administrative law, has no place in contractual matters
unless, of course, the parties have expressly incorporated it as a
part of the contract - It is the bounden duty of the court while
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 731
731
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
interpreting the terms of the contracts, to reject the exercise of
any such discretion that is entirely outside the realm of the
contract.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Determination of the claim for escalation
depends on the construction of clause 3.11(A) of the contract,
which provides that the claim for escalation will not be
entertained unless there exist circumstances beyond the
control of the contract. Further, the claim is admissible only
upon the written order of the Superintending Engineer in
charge of the work. In instant case both conditions are satisfied.
In the first instance, the inspection report clearly indicates
that the original quarry is depleted of the sand and therefore
an alternative quarry is necessary for the execution of the
contract. Secondly, this is a circumstance which is certainly
beyond the control of the Contractor. Further, the permission
granted by the Superintending Engineer is in complete
satisfaction of the requirement of the clause. Therefore the claim
for escalation is in full satisfaction of the terms of the contract.
[Para 18][739-C-E]
2. A contractual clause which provides for the finality of
rates quoted by the Contractor and disallows any future claims
for escalation is conclusive and binding on the parties. If the
clause debarring future claims permits escalation subject to
certain conditions, no claim is admissible if the conditions are
not satisfied. However, if the conditions are satisfied, the
Contractor will have a right to claim escalation. This is a
contractual right. The right originates and subsists by virtue
of the contract itself. It is the duty of the Court, while
interpreting the contract to decipher the true and correct
meaning the parties intended and enforce the rights arising
out of the contract. Officers administering the contract will
not have any discretion whatsoever to admit or deny escalation
after the conditions specified in a contract are satisfied. [Para
22][740-C-E]
3. The Executive Engineer has acted beyond the scope
of clause 3.11(A). Under the clause, if a circumstance beyond
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
733
the control of the Contractor exists and the Superintending
Engineer, in charge of work grants a written order to the effect,
a right to seek escalation arises. When the two conditions
provided under clause 3.11 (A) were satisfied, there was no
discretion left with the Executive Engineer to impose any
further conditions for claiming escalation. The Executive
Engineer has certainly acted beyond the scope of the contract.
The role of the Executive Engineer was only to forward the
decision of the Superintending Engineer and enable the
Contractor to raise a claim for escalation. [Para 23][740-E-G]
4. The rights and duties of the parties to the contract
subsist or perish in terms of the contract itself. Even if a party
to the contract is a governmental authority, there is no place
for discretion vested in the officers administering the contract.
Discretion, a principle within the province of administrative
law, has no place in contractual matters unless, of course, the
parties have expressly incorporated it as a part of the contract.
It is the bounden duty of the court while interpreting the terms
of the contracts, to reject the exercise of any such discretion
that is entirely outside the realm of the contract. [Para 24][740G-H; 741-A-B]
5. In the instant case, whether the escalation is justified
or not is another matter, and it is for the Arbitral Tribunal to
decide the admissibility of the claim depending on the evidence
on record. That will be a finding of fact. For the reason stated
the Arbitrator was justified in granting the claim for escalation
as the conditions precedent for raising a plea for escalation
are admittedly satisfied by the inspection report followed by
the letter of the Superintending Engineer. [Para 25][741-B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8571
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2019 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Arbitration Revision No. 04 of
2009.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION
LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Abhinav Shrivastava, Sunny Choudhary,
Madhav Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv., D. Bharat Kumar, Aman Shukla,
Yash S. Vijay, Utkarsh Pratap, M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Sandeep Singh,
Ms. Kaadambari, Navin Kr. Thakur, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in an Arbitration Revision No. 4 of 2009 under Section 19 of the
Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 19831 whereby
the award of the Arbitral Tribunal was upheld.
3. The short facts leading to the Arbitral Award and thereafter
the decision of the High Court may be stated as under.
4. The State issued a tender notice2 for the construction of a
Masonry Dam and eventually, Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Contractor') was selected as the successful bidder. A contract
was entered into on 06.11.1993 for a total consideration of
Rs. 1,22,81,86,600/-, to be completed within a period of sixty months.
5. As the only issue arising for consideration, in this case, relates
to the claim of escalation made by the Contractor, the relevant clause is
extracted hereunder:
"3.11(A) The quoted rates of the contractor shall be inclusive
of the leads and lifts and in no case separate payment for
leads or lifts to any materials including water shall be payable.
Similarly no leads or lifts for the materials issued by the
department as prescribed in the tender documents shall be
payable. The contractor shall bring approved quality of
materials. Different quarries are shown in Annexure C. The
details shown in the Annexure C are only as a guide to the
contractor but the contractor before tendering should satisfy
himself regarding the quantity and quality available and all
other details of Annexure C and provide for any variation in
respect of leads, lifts, place and method of quarrying, type of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
735
rocks to be quarried and all such other aspects in his tendered
rate. Later on any claim whatsoever shall not entertained
except where any quarry is changed for circumstance beyond
the control of contract under the written order of
Superintending Engineer in-charge of work."
6. Though the contract was entered into in 1993, the work was
suspended for a long time and it resumed on 18.09.2000. While carrying
out the construction work under the contract, the Contractor requested
an alternate quarry on 07.03.2002, which was denied by the Executive
Engineer on 11.03.2002. The decision of the Executive Engineer was
also confirmed by the Superintending Engineer on 12.12.2002 and this
has led the Contractor to seek a reference of the matter to arbitration3
(hereinafter referred to as 'the first arbitration').
7. While the above-referred claim for an alternative quarry
followed by the reference to the arbitration was pending, the Contractor
renewed the request for an alternate quarry, this time for excavating
sand from Mahuar quarry. This request was made on 20.10.2002. On
the basis of this request, a committee of two Executive Engineers and
one Sub-Divisional Officer conducted an inspection of the original quarry
that was allotted to the Contractor i.e., the Barua Sand quarry as well as
the new proposed quarry i.e., the Mahuar Sand quarry. This inspection
report dated 31.10.2002 suggested that there was no sand available in
the quarry originally allotted under the contract and there was justification
for the request made by the Contractor for allotment of the Mahuar
quarry which had sufficient stock of sand available.
8. Following the inspection report the Superintending Engineer by
his letter dated 12.11.2002 granted permission to the Contractor to
excavate sand from Mahuar quarry. It is important to mention here the
specific and categorical statement of the Superintending Engineer that
the permission granted under his letter would be subject to the conditions
specified in Clause 3.11(A) of the contract. The relevant portion of the
letter is extracted hereinbelow:
"....Accordingly after inspection and discussion, the
permission for excavating the sand from Mahua river sand
quarry, to the executive engineer is proposed, so the
construction work would not adversely affected. In this regard
on telephone, I have discussed the matter with the Chief
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION
LTD. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
Engineer on 31/10/2002 and his inspection report dated 17/
09/2002 and 18/09/2002 was referred in which it has been
mentioned that, if in Barua Nala sand Quarry the sand is not
available then the sand from Mahua river be obtained, which
was confirmed by him on 31/10/2002 during telephonic
conversation.....
....Therefore it is directed to the Executive Engineer,
Madikheda Dam(concrete Dam), Sindh Project and Executive
Engineer, Sindh Project(Mud Dam), in place of Barua Nala,
the sand of Mahuar River be used for construction of projects
under clause 3.11A of the condition of contract agreement,
the permission is granted. The Executive Engineers are further
directed that they will grant permission to the respective
contractor under clause 3.11A of the condition of contract
agreement, so the construction work would not be adversely
affected."
9. In compliance with the above-referred letter of the
Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer granted conditional
permission to use the Mahuar quarry under his letter dated 23.12.2002
which stated as under:
"Permission to collect sand from Mahua river is hereby
accorded with following conditions.
1. It is assumed as per clause 3.11A that provision in the tender
rate already exist for extra expenditure due to change in lead,
hence no payment for extra lead is admissible in this account,
nor any claim on this subject shall be acceptable by this office.
xxx
5. No extra time, fate or payment shall be allowed for
construction to this change"
10. Despite the conditional permission granted by the Executive
Engineer, the Contractor for the first time on 10.11.2006 raised a claim
of Rs. 5,51,03,040/- towards escalation for the enhanced cost incurred
due to the transportation of sand from the Mahuar quarry. The request
was rejected by the Superintending Engineer in his letter dated 14.12.2006,
stating that:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
737
"As per the clause 2.25 of N.l.T. page 50 of the agreement
and note Annexure -C page 85 which stat that "This statement
is only for the guidance of the contractor. The Tender should
satisfy himself regarding availability of the required quantity
and quality of materials."
Thus as per this clause the tender is therefore supposed to
satisfy himself about the availability of the quantity and quality
of material to be used before tendering. The lead chart is for
guidance only. Therefore this aspect is covered in the item of
works of schedule of quantities (Annexure -1) appended with
the tender and no claim is entertained of this page.
Therefore according to above referred clause of agreement
your claim of sand for extra lead is not valid and hence
rejected."
11. Aggrieved by the above-referred rejection of the claim by the
Superintending Engineer, the Contractor raised a claim under Section 7
of the Adhiniyam seeking resolution of the dispute through statutory
arbitration.
12. By Award dated 26.11.2008, the Arbitrator accepted the claim
raised by the Contractor and awarded an amount of Rs. 5,51,03,040/-
with 9% interest in favour of the Contractor. The revision filed by the
State against the Award under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam was dismissed
by the order impugned herein. The High Court rejected arguments of
the State and allowed the claim of the Contractor on mainly three grounds:
(a) the claim filed by the Contractor is not barred by limitation; (b) the
principle of res judicata is not appliable, and (c) the Contractor is entitled
to the escalation as provided in clause 3.11(A) of the contract.
Submissions by the Parties:
13. Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General
for the State of Madhya Pradesh submitted that the claim made by the
Contractor is barred by res judicata. What he really means is that the
original claim made by the Contractor on 07.03.2002 leading to the
initiation and rejection of claims under the first arbitral award dated
06.10.2007 become final, and therefore a similar claim is inadmissible.
Shri Saurabh Mishra took us through the letters in the additional
compilation evidencing the request for arbitration, the rejection by the
Executive Engineer dated 11.03.2002 and thereafter by the Superintending
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION
LTD. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
Engineer dated 12.12.2002, the communication for reference to arbitration
dated 24.12.2002, and its culmination into the first award dated
06.10.2007. None of these facts are disputed by Ms. Menaka
Guruswamy, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Respondent No.1.
14. Shri Saurabh Mishra also argued that the letter of the
Superintending Engineer dated 12.12.2002 followed by the letter of the
Executive Engineer was implicitly accepted by the Contractor in letter
and spirit and without any protest. It is only after a period of four years
that the Contractor for the first time raised a plea for escalation, claiming
an amount of Rs. 5,51,03,040/- under a letter dated 10.11.2006. He would,
therefore, argue that this plea should not be permitted to be raised. He
finally submitted that while the Superintending Engineer rejected even
the belated request on 14.12.2006, the claim for arbitration was beyond
the period of limitation as per the contractual terms as the claim was
made only on 10.12.2007.
15. Countering the submissions of the State, Ms. Menaka
Guruswamy submitted that sand is an essential ingredient for the
execution of the contract. Initially, the lead provided for her client was at
a distance of 20 kilometers from the Baruanala quarry. The transportation
from the lead and the lifting of the sand, together constitute an integral
part of the cost. Both these components have a serious impact on the
profitability for the Contractor. According to her, it is an admitted fact
that the Baruanala was depleted of sand and therefore, it became
compelling to provide an alternative site for executing the contract.
However, the alternative site is at an additional distance of 40 kilometers
and therefore her client had to incur the extra cost for the transportation
of the sand. It is for this reason that the Superintending Engineer, as well
as the Executive Engineer, have granted the requisite permissions after
due inspection and therefore, the claim for escalation is justified.
16. It was further argued that the first arbitral award dated
06.10.2007 rejecting the previous claim will have no bearing on the present
proceedings as the former related to the first part of the clause and the
present arbitration would relate to a period thereafter. She argued that
as the request for arbitration relates to the later part of the clause, the
earlier award cannot operate as res judicata.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
17. We may mention at this very stage that this argument has the
effect of bifurcating the contract into two parts which is an impermissible
interpretation. The contract is a solitary agreement, intended to be
performed, executed and discharged as a single obligation. The rights
and obligations under the contract cannot be read separately by dividing
it into two parts. This argument is, therefore, rejected at the outset.
However, we will now proceed to consider the other submissions.
Analysis and Findings:
18. Determination of the claim for escalation depends on the
construction of clause 3.11(A) of the contract, which provides that the
claim for escalation will not be entertained unless there exist
circumstances beyond the control of the contract. Further, the claim is
admissible only upon the written order of the Superintending Engineer in
charge of the work. In our view, both conditions are satisfied. In the first
instance, the inspection report dated 31.10.2002 clearly indicates that
the original quarry is depleted of the sand and therefore an alternative
quarry is necessary for the execution of the contract. Secondly, this is a
circumstance which is certainly beyond the control of the Contractor.
Further, the permission granted by the Superintending Engineer dated
12.11.2002 is in complete satisfaction of the requirement of the clause.
We are of the opinion that the claim for escalation is in full satisfaction
of the terms of the contract.
19. The most important submission of the State is that the claim
for arbitration is in fact barred by res judicata. We have examined this
submission in detail and our findings are as follows.
20. The initial request for a change of quarry was made on
07.03.2002. This request was rejected by the Executive Engineer on
11.03.2002 and the same was confirmed by the Superintending Engineer
on 12.12.2002. Without any factual basis justifying the need, or proving
circumstances beyond the control of the Contractor, a claim was made
for arbitration at the first instance on 24.12.2002. It is this reference that
the Arbitrator considered and rejected by his award dated 06.10.2007.
As is evident from the above, (a) the request for arbitration was made in
2002 itself, (b) there was no proof of the fact that the Contractor was in
a position which is beyond his control, (c) there was no written order by
the Superintending Engineer granting sanction for the change of quarry,
(d) there were in fact letters of the Superintending Engineer as well as
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION
LTD. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
the Executive Engineer rejecting the claim for an alternate quarry. These
four factors make all the difference between the first arbitral award and
the present proceedings. Hence, the principle of res judicata is not
applicable.
21. A further question which remains for consideration is with
respect to the letter of the Executive Engineer granting conditional
permission. Shri Saurabh Mishra has submitted that while the Contractor
accepts the alternate quarry, they cannot wriggle out of the condition of
no escalation. We will presently deal with this submission.
22. A contractual clause which provides for the finality of
rates quoted by the Contractor and disallows any future claims for
escalation is conclusive and binding on the parties. If the clause
debarring future claims permits escalation subject to certain
conditions, no claim is admissible if the conditions are not satisfied.
However, if the conditions are satisfied, the Contractor will have a
right to claim escalation. This is a contractual right. The right
originates and subsists by virtue of the contract itself. It is the duty
of the Court, while interpreting the contract to decipher the true
and correct meaning the parties intended and enforce the rights
arising out of the contract. Officers administering the contract will
not have any discretion whatsoever to admit or deny escalation
after the conditions specified in a contract are satisfied.
23. The Executive Engineer has in our opinion acted beyond the
scope of clause 3.11(A). Under the clause, if a circumstance beyond
the control of the Contractor exists and the Superintending Engineer, in
charge of work grants a written order to the effect, a right to seek
escalation arises. When the two conditions provided under clause 3.11
(A) were satisfied, there was no discretion left with the Executive
Engineer to impose any further conditions for claiming escalation. The
Executive Engineer, in our opinion, has certainly acted beyond the scope
of the contract. The role of the Executive Engineer was only to forward
the decision of the Superintending Engineer and enable the Contractor
to raise a claim for escalation.
24. In the context of discretion, we may reiterate this principle.
The rights and duties of the parties to the contract subsist or perish
in terms of the contract itself. Even if a party to the contract is a
governmental authority, there is no place for discretion vested in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
741
the officers administering the contract. Discretion, a principle within
the province of administrative law, has no place in contractual
matters unless, of course, the parties have expressly incorporated
it as a part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of the court while
interpreting the terms of the contracts, to reject the exercise of any
such discretion that is entirely outside the realm of the contract.
25. Returning to the facts of the present case, whether the
escalation is justified or not is another matter, and it is for the Arbitral
Tribunal to decide the admissibility of the claim depending on the evidence
on record. That will be a finding of fact, with which we are not concerned.
For the reason stated above, we are of the opinion that the Arbitrator
was justified in granting the claim for escalation as the conditions precedent
for raising a plea for escalation are admittedly satisfied by the inspection
report dated 31.10.2002 followed by the letter of the Superintending
Engineer dated 12.11.2002.
26. The last submission of Shri Saurabh Mishra that the High
Court has acted beyond the scope of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam remains
to be considered. Section 19(2) of the Adhiniyam is as under:
"19. High Court's power of revision: (1).....
(2) If it appears to the High Court that the Tribunal -
(a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally, or with
material irregularity; or
(d) has misconducted itself or the proceedings; or
(e) has made an award which is invalid or has been improperly
procured by any party to the proceedings, the High Court
may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.
(3) The High Court shall in deciding any revision under this
section exercise the same powers and follow the same
procedure as far as may be, as it does in deciding a revision
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No.5
of 1908)."
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION
LTD. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
27. Having examined the matter in detail, we are of the opinion
that there are no errors of jurisdiction or acts of misconduct or events of
invalidity or impropriety in the conduct of proceedings by the Arbitrator.
For this reason, the High Court has rightly refrained from exercising its
revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(2) by not interfering with the
award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
28. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Appeal arising out of
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 907 of 2020 is accordingly dismissed.
29. Parties to bear their own costs.
Devika Gujral
Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)