Whether arbitrator can allow claim on ground of equity and contrary to terms of contract?
78. In paragraph 27 of the impugned award, the arbitral tribunal has held that at the relevant time, the petitioner herein was in a superior bargaining position since they were, to all intents and purposes, monopoly purchasers of the services being offered and therefore, the contractor had little choice available with him. To secure employment in the field of operation of vessels with another party was virtually impossible. It is held that in the instant case, the employment was being offered by an agency of the state from whom the operator had a right to except fair treatment. It is clear that the arbitral tribunal has erroneously applied the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport case which does not apply to a commercial contract. The respondent had submitted its bid with open eyes and being a contractor in the field for last several decades could not even raise such plea that the contract was one sided or that the respondent had no bargaining power while entering into a contract with the petitioner. The award shows total perversity on this issue.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Arbitration Petition No. 549 of 2013
Decided On: 09.06.2017
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Interocean Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
Citation: 2017(5) Bom CR 8
