Introduction:
Arbitration is a widely recognized alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method where parties submit disputes to a neutral arbitrator for a binding decision based on evidence, contract terms, and laws. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996, outlines the procedure for challenging arbitral awards in India, emphasizing minimal judicial intervention to uphold their finality. Courts cannot reassess the merits or factual findings of the arbitrator, with judicial review limited to patent illegality or procedural issues. This principle was discussed in the case of M/s S.K. Minerals vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. [i]before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Facts
In this case, the claimant was awarded a contract to construct an approach road, but disputes arose regarding delayed payments and approval of revised estimates. The claimant alleged that the respondent caused delays in granting extensions and settling payments, while the respondent argued that the claim was filed 11 years beyond the limitation period. The respondent also contested the quality of the work and the delays caused by the claimant. The Sole Arbitrator ruled in favour of the claimant, finding the claim was within the limitation period. The respondent challenged the award under Section 34, and the Commercial Court set it aside, stating that the award ignored the law of limitation, was vitiated by patent illegality, and conflicted with public policy. The claimant appealed, arguing that the Commercial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the arbitrator’s findings.
Judicial Overview
This case underscores the importance of limiting judicial intervention under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996. Courts are allowed to interfere with arbitral awards only on specific grounds, such as procedural irregularities or violations of fundamental legal principles, to uphold the award’s finality and ensure the efficiency of arbitration.
In this case, the Commercial Court’s decision to set aside the award based on its interpretation of the limitation period reflects judicial overreach. Section 34 is meant to prevent courts from reevaluating the merits or factual findings of the arbitrator, ensuring that arbitration remains a more efficient and timely alternative to litigation. By intervening in the arbitrator’s determination of the limitation period, the court undermined the efficiency of arbitration.
The High Court’s intervention, which set aside the award citing patent illegality and conflict with public policy, particularly on the limitation issue, also goes beyond the intended scope of Section 34. Judicial review should focus on preventing significant legal violations, not re-assessing the arbitrator’s factual conclusions.
Conclusion
This case highlights the need for limited judicial intervention in arbitration to maintain its efficiency and finality. Judicial review under Section 34 should focus on addressing legal violations or procedural issues, not factual determinations made by the arbitrator. This approach ensures arbitration remains a swift, efficient, and binding method of dispute resolution.
Author: Hiteashi Rajan Desai, Associate at R&D Law Chambers LLP
*R & D Law Chambers is a firm providing Legal advisory and International and Domestic Tax Advisory services. To know more visit https://rdlawchambers.com/.
*The content of this article is intended to provide general information. No reader or user should act or refrain from acting on the basis of the information written above without first seeking legal advice from a qualified law practitioner.