LIST OF SUPREME COURT CASES RELATING TO ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ----- Click Here
 

Build India Construction System vs. Union of India

(The general conditions of contract were amended without obtaining the consent of the Apellant and hence the amended arbitration clause is not binding on the Appellant)
.

Case Reference :
Civil Appeal No.3364 of 2002, decided on May 7, 2002

Judges :
Justice R.C.Lahoti and Justice B.N.Agrawal

Parties :

Build India Construction System (Appellant) Vs. Union of India (Respondent).

Gist of the Case:

A contract was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondents on 29-5-1995. On 4-9-1986, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence made an amendment in the general conditions of the contract whereby the Arbitrator was required to give a reasoned award if the claim exceeded Rs. 1 lakh. Disputes arose between the parties and on 31-5-1991 an Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the arbitration agreement. The Arbitrator allowed the Appellant’s claim to the extent of Rs.80,000/- only and rejected the counter-claim of the Respondent.

The question which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the amendment dt.4-9-1986 made to the general conditions of the contract casts an obligation on the Arbitrator to give a reasoned award. The Appellant’s contention was that the amendment dt.4-9-1986 applied only to the contracts entered into on and after that date and in any case the Respondents could not have amended the general conditions of contract all by themselves without their consent and therefore the arbitration clause as contained in the general conditions of contract as on 29-5-1985, i.e. the date of contract was only applicable. The Respondent took the plea that the acceptance letter signed by the Appellant should be read and interpreted as the Appellant having authorised the Respondents to amend the general conditions of the contract and also as the Appellant having agreed to bind itself by the general conditions of the contract as modified from time to time and therefore the award given by the Arbitrator in breach of the arbitration clause as amended should be held as void.

The Supreme Court rejected the plea of the Respondent stating that there is nothing contained in the acceptance letter of the Appellant, either expressly or by necessary implication, to spell out the Appellant having authorised the Respondents to carry out modifications in the terms and conditions of the contract otherwise than by mutual agreement, and to hold the Appellant bound by such modifications though not consented to by him and though not even brought to his knowledge.

 

Citation :
(2002) 5 SCC 433

*********
LIST OF SUPREME COURT CASES RELATING TO ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ----- Click Here