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

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