STEEMAN LTD. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

STEEMAN LTD. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction in framing issues by consent and was not bound to answer the prior question of law; no separate property claim was made in amended pleadings; reasonable opportunity to be heard was given; the award of 6% interest was justified, the court's...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant/petitioner: Steeman Ltd.; Respondent: State of Himachal Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application With Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Final Disposal After Objections to Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application and petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Award Challenge, Interest on Award, Opportunity to Be Heard, Procedural Fairness Under Arbitration Act 1940
Arbitration Award Challenge Interest on Award Opportunity to Be Heard Procedural Fairness Under Arbitration Act 1940

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steeman Ltd.

Applicant/petitioner

State of Himachal Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application With Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Final Disposal After Objections to Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator was bound to answer the question of law raised before the predecessor arbitrator
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator made a non-speaking award and failed to consider part of the claim
  3. 3 Whether reasonable opportunity to be heard was given

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction in framing issues by consent and was not bound to answer the prior question of law; no separate property claim was made in amended pleadings; reasonable opportunity to be heard was given; the award of 6% interest was justified, the court's power of intervention under Section 30 was narrow and not attracted on these grounds.

Court Disposition

Application and petition dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory Application 1/96 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 233/80 dismissed
  • Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15978/86 dismissed