Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust; 2026 INSC 34 - Ss.34,37 Arbitration Act

Note

You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Section 34,37- The scope of interference of the court with the arbitral matters is virtually prohibited, if not absolutely barred. The powers of the Appellate Court are even more restricted than the powers conferred by Section 34 of the Act. The appellate power under Section 37 of the Act is exercisable only to find out if the court exercising power under Section 34 of the Act, has acted within its limits as prescribed thereunder or has exceeded or failed to exercise the power so conferred. The Appellate Court exercising powers under Section 37 of the Act has no authority of law to consider the matter in dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal on merits so as to hold as to whether the award of the Arbitral Tribunal is right or wrong. The Appellate Court in exercise of such power cannot sit as an ordinary court of appeal and reappraise the evidence to record a contrary finding. The award of the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be touched by the court unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law or any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement. (Para 37)

Arbitration - The Act is a special enactment which aims to resolve contractual/commercial disputes through arbitration with the minimum intervention of the court, if not without the intervention of the court. In the event, the courts are allowed to step in at every stage and the arbitral awards are subjected to challenge before the courts in hierarchy before court of first instance, through regular appeals and finally by means of SLP/Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, it would obviate/frustrate and defeat the very purpose of the Act. It is therefore, necessary to accept the arbitral award if it is not patently illegal or does not fall within the scope of intervention under Section 34 of the Act. The appeal thereof has a much narrower scope of intervention particularly when the arbitral award has been upheld under Section 34 of the Act. The appellate jurisdiction acquires little significance only when the arbitral award has been erroneously upheld or set aside by the court in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act. (Para 51) 

Case Info



Case Details

  • Coram: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
  • Judgment date: January 07, 2026

Caselaws and Citations

  • MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited, (2019) 4 SCC 163.
  • Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project, (2023) 9 SCC 85.
  • Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sanman Rice Mills, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2632.
  • UHL Power Company Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 4 SCC 116.
  • Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Samir Narain Bhojwani, (2024) 7 SCC 218.
  • National Highways Authority of India v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., 2024 INSC 388.
  • Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, (2019) 15 SCC 131.
  • Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, (2023) 15 SCC 472.

Statutes/Laws Referred

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Sections 5, 34, and 37.
  • Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.
  • Indian Companies Act, 1956.