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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more