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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more