Calcutta High Court held Arbitrator’s refusal to decide question of interest under the MSMED Act constitutes a “decision” and therefore, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Based on facts, the Supreme Court said that gunshots fired indiscriminately could be said to be a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.
“Arbitration is a private form of dispute resolution, however, the arbitral proceedings must meet the juristic requirements of due process and procedural fairness and reasonableness, to achieve a ‘judicially’ sound and objective outcome or award”.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on the credibility of injured eyewitnesses.
“It is essential that there be illegalities or deficiencies at the face of the Award which shocks the conscience of the Court for it to qualify to be set aside by an act of this Court while adjudicating upon a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
A party cannot simply raise an objection on the ground of patent illegality if the Award is against them. Patent illegality requires a distinct transgression of law, the clear lack of which makes the petition a pointless effort of objection towards an Award passed by a competent Arbitral Tribunal.
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is a clear and unequivocal embodiment of the Legislature‘s intent to balance the competing facets of arbitration, I.e., on one hand, while courts are enjoined to follow the minimalist intervention route, it would clearly be a travesty of justice if they were to fail to intervene where circumstances warrant, and demand corrective measures being adopted.
The Supreme Court explained that the older Act enabled the Court to modify an award, a power which was consciously omitted by Parliament while enacting the 1996 Act, hinting towards exclusion of power to modify an award.
Indian Railway’s has failed to substantiate its grounds for setting aside the impugned Arbitral Award that the impugned award suffers from patent illegality and the findings therein are perverse and would shock the conscience of this Court.
“The Tribunal provided reasons for the findings delivered, and there was no perversity apparent on the face of the record or which goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the impugned Award could not be said to be patently illegal.”
The concession agreement is neither a statute, nor is it a law which protects the national interests of this nation and a mere failure of the arbitral tribunal to consider an argument on the same would not render the arbitral award in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
India has long hoped to become an arbitration hub and providing time bound mechanisms for resolving disputes will certainly be a feather in the cap. Introducing Section 29A by way of amendment is therefore intentioned to ensure that the disputes in arbitration are adjudicated in a time-bound manner.
The scope of a challenge under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 Arbitration Act.
The ground of Patent illegality gives way to setting aside an Arbitral Award with a very minimal scope of intervention. A party cannot simply raise an objection on the ground of patent illegality if the Award is simply against them. Patent illegality requires a distinct transgression of law, the clear lack of which thereof makes the petition simply a pointless effort of objection towards an Award made by a competent Arbitral Tribunal.
All that the respondent wished for was a better roof over the head of his family. It was for this objective that the collaboration agreement was devised, but the appellant subjected the respondent to undue harassment on account of his illegal designs which led to the registration of the FIR, and the respondent had to run from pillar to post due to the direct acts of the appellant. Such circumstances do warrant awarding of damages on account of mental agony and harassment.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996
Supreme Court: In a case where the Punjab and Haryana High Court not only set aside the judgment of the District Judge
Supreme Court: While settling the dispute between Anglo American Metallurgical Coal (AAMC) and MMTC Ltd, the bench of RF Nariman* and KM
“The entire approach of the Division Bench is flawed.”
Supreme Court: The question before the division bench of Ravindra Bhat and Indira Banerjee, JJ. was whether a foreign award rendered in