M/S.Karnataka Commercial And ... vs The Airport Director And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2357 Tel

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI C.M.A.No. 450 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

The present appeal is arising out of order dated 27.02.2018

passed by the Judge, Commercial Court -cum- XXIV Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.O.P.No.210 of 2017 (The

Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Hyderabad v.

M/s. Karnataka Commercial & Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd.).

The facts of the case reveal that the petition was preferred before

the court below under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996, with a prayer to set aside the award dated 04.10.2008 passed

in favour of M/s. Karnataka Commercial & Industrial Corporation Pvt.

Ltd., i.e., the appellant before this Court and the learned Judge,

Commercial Court -cum- XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, has modified the award and the aforesaid fact has

not been disputed by either side in open court.

Learned counsel for the parties have drawn the attention of this

Court towards judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of

Mc.Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard ::2::

Co.Ltd. and others1. Paragraph 52 of the said judgment reads as

under:

"52. The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it."

Similarly attention was drawn towards the judgment delivered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Project Director,

National Highways No.45E and 220, National

Highways Authority of India v. M.Hakeem and

another2. Paragraph 48 of the said judgment reads as under:

"48. Quite obviously if one were to include the power to modify an award in Section 34, one would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha and doing what, according to the justice of a case, ought to be done. In interpreting a statutory provision, a Judge must put himself in the shoes of Parliament and then ask whether Parliament intended this result.

(2006) 11 SCC 181

(2021) 9 SCC 1 ::3::

Parliament very clearly intended that no power of modification of an award exists in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is only for Parliament to amend the aforesaid provision in the light of the experience of the courts in the working of the Arbitration Act, 1996, and bring it in line with other legislations the world over."

After careful consideration of the aforesaid judgment, it is crystal

clear that the court below has transgressed its jurisdiction by modifying

the award and the action of the court below is certainly contrary to the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases.

Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the court below is,

hereby, aside. The court below shall pass a fresh order in accordance

with law after hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the

court below on 27.06.2022.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

______________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 06-06-2022 LUR ::4::