Skip to main content

Cannot appeal for re-assessing or re-approaching evidence against an arbitral award

In Utpal Dasgupta Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sinha, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that ;-

From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:

(a) An Award, which is

(i) Contrary to substantive provisions of law; or

(ii) The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; or

(iii) Against the terms of the respective contract; or

(iv) Patently illegal, or

(v) Prejudicial to the rights of the parties, is open to interference by the Court under S.34(2) of the Act.

(b) Award could be set aside if it is contrary to:

(i) Fundamental policy of Indian Law; or

(ii) The interest of India; or

(iii) Justice or morality;

(iv) The Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court;

(v) It is open to the Court to consider whether the Award is against the specific terms of contract and if so, interfere with it on the ground that it is patently illegal and opposed to the public policy of India.”

Therefore a court does not sit in appeal over the award of an arbitral tribunal by re-assessing or re-approaching the evidence. An award can be challenged only on the grounds mentioned in S.34(2) of the Act.

Elsewhere the Hon'ble court has subdivided Public Policy of India in four separate and distinct sub-heads, namely:-
i) Fundamental Policy of Indian Law;
ii) Interest of India;
iii) Justice or Morality; and
iv) Patent Illegality.
Fundamental Policy of Indian Law was again subdivided in four heads, namely,
i) Compliance with statutes and judicial precedents;
ii) Need of judicial approach;
iii) Natural justice compliance;
iv) Wednesbury reasonableness.
Patent Illegality principle was subdivided in three heads, namely,
i) Contravention of substantive law of India;
ii) Contravention of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;
iii) Contravention of the terms of the contract.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more