Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Ashoka Tubewell and Engineering Corporation v. Union of India

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal Nos. 9852-53 of 2014)Decided 22 Sept 2014
Civil Appeal Nos. 9852-53 of 2014
Justice Anil R. Dave · Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

Background

A railway construction contract provided for arbitration only by a gazetted railway officer. When no arbitrator was appointed, the High Court appointed a former judge with both sides' consent. After the contractor obtained an award, the railway challenged that appointment and the High Court set the award aside.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the contractor's appeals and restored the award. Both sides had consented to the former judge's appointment and the appointment order had not been challenged. Their agreement effectively substituted a new arrangement for the original restriction. The railway could not later invalidate the award by objecting to an appointment it had expressly accepted.

Lesson Learnt

If parties jointly agree to a different arbitrator, one party cannot ordinarily undo an unfavourable award by invoking the contract's superseded appointment restriction. Raise objections to appointment before consenting to the substituted arrangement.

Ashoka Tubewell and Engineering Corporation v. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware