NEELAKANTAN & BROS. CONSTRUCTION versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, SALEM & ORS.

NEELAKANTAN & BROS. CONSTRUCTION versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, SALEM & ORS.

The petitioner, having full knowledge of the change of the arbitrator and actively participating in the proceedings without protest, acquiesced to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. There was no violation of principles of natural justice. The award, though unreasoned, discloses no patent mistake of law or gross misstatement of facts warranting interference. Thus, the award is unassailable and the challenge fails.

Parties
Petitioner: Neelakantan & Bros. Construction; Respondent: Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Salem; Respondent: Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Tirunelveli
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 August 1988
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Decision on Special Leave Petition Under Article 136 of the Constitution Against the Madras High Court Judgment
Outcome
Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Acquiescence, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Principles of Natural Justice, Unreasoned Award
Arbitration Civil Procedure Acquiescence Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Principles of Natural Justice Unreasoned Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neelakantan & Bros. Construction

Petitioner

Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Salem

Respondent

Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Tirunelveli

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Decision on Special Leave Petition Under Article 136 of the Constitution Against the Madras High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties' participation before successor arbitrator amounts to acquiescence, precluding challenge to jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the award made by the successor arbitrator is invalid for want of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether an unreasoned award can be interfered with in court

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner, having full knowledge of the change of the arbitrator and actively participating in the proceedings without protest, acquiesced to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. There was no violation of principles of natural justice. The award, though unreasoned, discloses no patent mistake of law or gross misstatement of facts warranting interference. Thus, the award is unassailable and the challenge fails.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • The challenge to the award is rejected.
  • No order as to costs.