Published on: January 4, 2024 at 11:00 IST
Court: High Court of Delhi
Citation: Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. V.. Union of India (2010)
Honourable High Court of Delhi has enumerated following principles on the Public Policy for challenging the Arbitration Award.
- Public policy is a changing concept, it is not static but dynamic; it changes from time to time and the Courts have been empowered while interpreting this doctrine to resort to, judicial legislation euphemistically called ‘interpretation’, to further the public interest, equity, good conscience and justice.
- A law which is made for individual benefit can be waived by an individual/private person, however, when such law includes a public interest/public policy element, such rights arising from the law cannot be waived because the same becomes a matter of public policy/public interest.
9. I would have ordinarily decided this case on a totally different issue, viz. of the contractual clauses being void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, and which aspect I will dilate upon a little later, however, Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has argued that this Court must decide as to which judgment applies i.e. whether of Ramnath International or Asian Techs and for this purpose has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. v. Shramik Seva, (2001) 7 SCC 469 : AIR 2001 SC 3510 and para 8 thereof in which the Supreme Court mandates the High Court to take a view on merits on the issue, although there is apparently conflicting views as per the judgment of the Supreme Court.
10. In deciding this issue of the disentitlement to damages to the contractor (because of Ramnath International’s case) or the entitlement to damages (on account of Asian Techs Limited’s case), however, I would prefer to decide this case and base this judgment wholly, independently on my view that clauses which bar and disentitle a contractor to claim its just claims/damages/monetary entitlement, and which a contractor is entitled to by virtue of provisions of Sections 73 and 55 of the Contract Act, are void by virtue of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. I am also taking up this aspect of Section 23 first because the present discussion will help in deciding whether correct law is laid down in Ramnath International’s case or in Asian Techs Limited’s case.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra