I.K. Gujral Technical University v. M/S Mindlogicx Infotech Ltd. And ORS.
!
"#$# %&'() *)
+,,-. ))))),, -. /.,0,.) ))))).. &1,)... 1,).,+
!
"
" ### ,+2) 3 4 *5
$
%&' % "
% "( " % )* + + , -'
'- .'.. /01 2.'.'
" + 3 +
+
4 5 2267 .'..
.7 '8 .'.. +"
9 + + -2
+ $-73 +
%
4
%
$
" -2 '- .'-: % . 7
"
-
+" .;
'8 .'.- % +27 -&&6 " +
% + $ +% % -&&:+ + $
<% -&&6 ,
+9 =+ "
09= 1 + "
+% "
%
> + "
?
+ + + "
" ! $ + + "
%
++ !
" -& '8 .''2 (+ ++ +';
'8 .''2 % $
01 + ++9=$< + +3 " +% @++"
+
+$<
% % + +
+ + %
A%
9=$<@+
% %+ B01 " +<% +
" %
"
+ <%
% %
<% " <% $ +
+ "
"
+ +
!
"
"
#
!
$% !
& '
(
) * +!
$ %,
-) * .
. -, !
&
/ $+
?
? 01 $ + B 01 ! <%B 01 /
$ !
+
(+ '6 '& .''7 " @+ ++ +" + "
+ + + @+ B "
% 3CB
%$< +@+ % + D
-- -'
.'';
$
+ $+
-2 '- .'-: "
"
0 !
* %
1,& ,"1,222
% 3*34 *
5* . 0 !
* 678 1,& ,"1,222 9*,"221 . ! ', ,72,222 0 !
* "&,22,222 0 !
* %678 . * ! ," , 1,222,# ! , #
*
. *# # *
. / $
" ""% +27 "
""+
.;
'8 .'.-% "
+ %
"
%+
+ 27
3 +
% "+ +" "
E+ %F +
% 4
+ +27 -&&60 G$ *1 $+ "+
+ H
,=(
+ " %
$+
" +@+ %
+ 27 +
+
$+
@+ +H
, =(
$+
+ "
+
H
+
@+
%+%
"+
, H
(
> +" (
9 ++I
A
%H
+
+ ( + (% % +
% + "
$ " + "+ +
$<
, =(
+20101! "
+
+ $ -- -'
.''; $(+
"
270.10 1 + ( . !
# "
.# *#
#* %* *! :
# # ##; *
*, #!
#<
, ! * ,
# ! = * ! ! # #
! # = #
#* ! # #,
# * ##> ?
,
#
##
#
, * #
#
#*#
= # # #
!
, !
?
! , , ! !
, ?=/ +
% "+ ? ) =
" (
<% @+
" "<%5
(+ !
"
+<% $% + % + % $ ( "
$+
% E+ %F +
+
9 +" + ( + 27 0.1
"
%9 +"
"
)
+
!"#$#%#%& "# ' ()$# %#%$ %# $ *+ , % ()&$' & &!#,)$-
3 + +" +
?"
"+ +
"
% + 4
+ " + 27 0.1 +
% " +
% "270.1
?
" "+ % " +
+ (" +2: -&&6 ,+ )* + +"+ )
+ %
$+
+" +
"
+E+ %F + "+
"
+% "
+ >
% $
" ""
%
+ , + "+ 9A +"
$+
+"@+ % @+
% +
"+ + + + " "+ %
2: ("
+ + " "
+ % +
+ % "
, +" + % +
%
+ %" +E+ %F +
(E +F "
"+"E+ %F %
+ , % + ++ + ++ * E +F / " 9 A "
$9A "
+
+ "+ + + + 27 +@+ % + 2:
% +"
% )* + + , & ,%& * .
':
'- .'.. + & . , <
%
( .#.*,
(1 .#., < .
% @!
, !
!
,
#
A
/ !'%#%! +* , !
< B! % @
( .#.#
@
! > C .
(
,
#* % # *
!
( "
# ! # * A . !
!
% 77' . "2 &, A # *, ,
*A , A ,< *, @ !* # .
*, C * A C <
, ! < , < , $
#* :, % $# %& )$0)1#2)$- $# +* 3( ,; # 3 ,C !*C #
# A , 77' ., C '. ,
# ,#
#*% 3)4)!%$0#)%#$&)! $$%#
+, #
#
>
C" %
( . #
D * + # !
( . !*
# # $
, *#
# #
# A # <
* #* # ! @ ! *#* #C 1 A #
! #* % # , # ,
.#
! A -#% / #&4 $!# $% + , %
@ !
( .# . #
!!
> C" ( .# . !
* !
#* % $
# !E # #
, % * !
# ! #* * #
( # D
<
( * # **!
<
#*
A % # , # !
C % +
+(+2: + " (
$ + +
? "+ 01
2: + +
+
+ B01
"+ + "+ %
"
E+ %F
+
) " + + %
" $ 270.1 %
%9
+" ,
+2:
( %+ 2: + (1.
#
F . !
%
#* !
% !
, *>F !! !!*
7= # !
!
#
( "
. %
!! ##F !
# "
# ( '= # !! ! !
1 (
,#! **! %C
+
+ +"
% )* ( + %
%
%+ (+2:
( % $
+
+
%
"
% "
+
% ,
, "
+
% %
"
% +" $
%
" %
+ + ,
+ %#4-#4 5#4#$#4 %# #$) # !%#- ' %#%& 046%- ,)$- . "#% )* + + %"+ +"
A+ 0+ 1 + $ , , @ ?#?* A /,
(
G, *A / @
G "1 . H
* A # !
!/
! @ * $ I @ #
*A, $ I , @
"G "7 . H
, !
#,
! ! ! #
< , %J # ,#
B , <
,
G ( "
77'., # ! !
,
(2. H
C $)* + + #&# *+ / ' #%$$ +
"12. Further, it is also a settled proposition that where the arbitrator has taken a possible view, although a different view may be possible on the same evidence, the Court would not interfere with the award. This Court in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 9 SCC 449 held as follows: "36. Be it noted that by reason of a long catena of cases, it is now a well-settled principle of law that reappraisal of evidence by the court is not permissible and as a matter of fact exercise of power by the court to reappraise the evidence is unknown to proceedings under section 30 of the Arbitration Act. In the event of there being no reasons in the award, question of interference of the court would not arise at all.
In the event, however, there are reasons, the interference would still be not available within the jurisdiction of the court unless of course, there exist a total perversity in the award or the judgment is based on a wrong proposition of law. In the event however two views are possible on a question of law as well, the court would not be justified in interfering with the award.
37. The common phraseology "error apparent on the face of the record" does not itself, however, mean and imply closer scrutiny of the merits of documents and materials on record. The court as a matter of fact, cannot substitute its evaluation and come to the conclusion that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. If the view of the arbitrator is a possible view the award or the reasoning contained therein cannot be examined..."
13. From the above pronouncements, and from a catena of other judgments of this Court, it is clear that for the objector/appellant in order to succeed in their challenge against an arbitral award, they must show that the award of the arbitrator suffered from perversity or an error of law or that the arbitrator has otherwise misconducted himself. Merely showing that there is another reasonable interpretation or possible view on the basis of the material on the record is insufficient to allow for the interference by the Court [See State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions, (2003) 7 SCC 396; Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Company v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 409; OswalWoollen Mills Limited v. OswalAgro Mills Limited, (2018) 16 SCC 219]".
"
+
+ ""
+" H
, =(
+ @++
+20101!
, + + H
, =(
+
+ +" + $ + + % 9 I "
"
H
" %
+@+ %,=(
" % % A !
H
I
% + " %
%
% @+% %
( , "
"
% "
% "
" + + + $ %
++
% "
" "
+ ( + 2:
"
% "
" % "
"
% 9 +"
+27
5 "
%
..
,+ '() *)
!%#7) / "> J> /I J>