Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

41. Learned counsel for the respondent has rightly relied upon the judgments in the case of Sutlej (supra) and MMTC Ltd. (supra) to contend that the finding by the Arbitrator in the impugned award is neither perverse nor patently illegal nor against any fundamental policy of the land or morality or justice. The finding is in accordance with the terms of the contract and is not such which would shock the conscious of this Court. The Apex Court in the case of Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49, relying upon McDermott International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 has held as under:

43. In McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181] , this Court held as under:

(SCC pp. 225-26, paras 112-13) "112. It is trite that the terms of the contract can be express or implied. The conduct of the parties would also be a relevant factor in the matter of construction of a contract. The construction of the contract agreement is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators having regard to the wide nature, scope and ambit of the arbitration agreement and they cannot be said to have misdirected themselves in passing the award by taking into consideration the conduct of the parties. It is also trite that correspondences exchanged by the parties are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of construction of a contract. Interpretation of a contract is a matter for the arbitrator to determine, even if it gives rise to determination of a question of law.