ARTICLE
6 May 2022

An Arbitrator Cannot Turn A Clause Of A Contract Infructuous

SO
S&A Law Offices

Contributor

S&A Law Offices is a full-service law firm comprising experienced, well-recognized and accomplished professionals. S&A Law Offices aims to provide its clients (both domestic and international) with top-quality counsel and legal insights, which combines the Firm's innovative approach with comprehensive expertise across industries and a broad spectrum of modalities. Being a full-service law firm, we take pride in having the capability of providing impeccable legal solutions across various practice areas and industries and makes an endeavor to provide a 360 degree legal solution. With registered office at Gurugram and other strategically located offices in New Delhi, Mumbai, and Bengaluru, along with associate offices across India, S&A is fully equipped to provide legal services on a pan-India basis.
According to the rule of harmonious construction of contracts, interpretation should be made by reading or taking the document, and exclusion of any clause should not be readily inferred unless it is clearly stated ...
India Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

INTRODUCTION

According to the rule of harmonious construction of contracts, interpretation should be made by reading or taking the document, and exclusion of any clause should not be readily inferred unless it is clearly stated in a particular clause of the document or contract.1 A consistent interpretation should also be given with a view to the smooth working of the system, which the document purports to regulate.2

The Courts and Arbitral Tribunals as far as possible should avoid a construction that would render the words or terms in a contract or document meaningless and futile, or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable.3

Click here to continue reading . . .

Footnotes

1. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited vs. Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. COM. C.A. No. 03 of 2020 (06.01.22 – APHC)

2. Independent Thought vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2017)10SCC800

3. Central Coalfields Ltd. V. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More