UHL POWER COMPANY LTD v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
year was applicable only to the conditions contemplated in Clause 4.1(a) and (b) and not to those stipulated in Clause 4.1(c) to (g), is found to be unmerited and is turned down. When the parties to the Implementation Agreement were ad idem that the period of one year available to UHL to commence the construction activity was to be reckoned after the major requirements prescribed in Clause 4.1 could be obtained, then any argument sought to be advanced to segregate the obligations under different sub-heads of Clause 4.1 only to lay the blame at the door of UHL when the requisite clearances were to be obtained by the State Government from the Central Government and Centralized Authorities, is devoid of merits, besides being completely unreasonable and illogical. [Para 13][12-D-H; 13-A]
This Court also accepts as correct, the view expressed by the Appellate Court that the Single Judge committed a gross error in re-appreciating the findings returned by the Arbitral Tribunal and taking an entirely different view in respect of the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the Implementation Agreement governing the parties inasmuch as it was not open to the said Court to do so in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, by virtually acting as a Court of Appeal. [Para 14][13-B-C]
As it is, the jurisdiction conferred on Courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is fairly narrow, when it comes to the scope of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is all the more circumscribed. [Para 15][13-C-D] MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited (2019) 4 SCC 163 : [2019] 3 SCR 1023; K.Sugumar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2020) 12 SCC 539; Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (2019) 20 SCC 1; Parsa Kente Collieries Limited v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (2019) 7 SCC 236 : [2019] 8SCR 728; McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. And Others (2019) 20 SCC 1; 4 A B C D E F G H UHL POWER COMPANY LTD. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.