Skip to main content

Arbitration: 'Patent Illegality' & 'Contra Proferentem' explained

Cause Title : Flowmore Limited vs M/s Skipper Limited, O.M.P. (COMM) 391/2022, Delhi High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 2nd February, 2023

Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

Citied: 

  1. PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Board of Trustees of V. O. Chidambranar Port Trust, Tuticorin and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 4661
  2. Patel Engg. Ltd. v. North Eastern Electric Power Corpn. Ltd., (2020) 7 SCC 167
  3. Nabha Power Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (2018) 11 SCC 508
  4. Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49
  5. R vs. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal. Ex Parte Shaw, 1952 1 All ER 122
  6. ChampseyBhara Company vs. The Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd., AIR 1923 PC 66
  7. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (2022) 1 SCC 131

Background

The main ground taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner while assailing the Arbitral Award is that the impugned Arbitral Award is ex-facie erroneous and suffers from patent illegality, contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian Law by misappreciating vital evidence and virtually re-writting the contract terms by way of his interpretation, and has altered the agreed terms and the intention of the parties.

Judgment

The Delhi High Court decided that the issue before the Court was to adjudicate whether the Learned Arbitrator had adopted a judicial approach while giving out the Award. The Court may only interfere where the Arbitrator has failed in adopting a judicial approach during the Arbitration Proceedings, analysis of the contract, and thus while giving the Award. Where it is evident that the Learned Arbitrator had worked well within his limits and there has not been any arbitrary exercise of power, there is no scope of interference of the Court.

The Delhi High Court referring to the various judgments as above held that on the issue of 'patent illegality' raised by the Petitioner,  the decisive test is that first, whether the learned arbitrator has adopted a judicial approach; second, the principles of natural justice has been upheld; third, the decision must not have been egregious, or rather, perverse.

“Patent Illegality” is an illegality that goes to the root of the matter but excludes the erroneous application of the law by an arbitral tribunal or re-appreciation of evidence by an appellate court. 

The court observed that in this instant case, the Arbitral Award was a well-reasoned award, with the findings being clearly arrived at based on all the documents/evidence on record. The learned Arbitrator has clearly considered all the relevant evidence of record, and the ground of “misappreciation of evidence” does not stand validated as per the submissions of the Petitioner and under the observation of the Court. The impugned Award is in no way in contravention of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to reason that the Award is patently illegal.

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.

The principle is that if arbitrators use the contract itself to determine a dispute, clauses should, in principle, be construed 'contra proferentem', meaning that they should be interpreted against the party that drafted it.

In the instant case, The Petitioner had drafted the Purchase Contract in which the Respondent was a signatory. The Learned Arbitrator having observed various interpretations of the contract, chose to endorse the interpretation that is favorable to the Respondent. The application of the rule of contra proferentem validates the learned Arbitrator‟s findings and observations regarding the interpretation of the contract so as to decide the question of breach of the contract.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more