Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Award to the extent it has been impugned in question, is neither patently illegal or in contravention of fundamental policy of India because it has held the Deed to be determinable, revocable and unenforceable. Moreover, it is also submitted that the same is well reasoned on substantive law. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if compensation is the remedy available for breach of a Contract, then the same should be availed before NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:2814 the remedy becomes unavailable under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

ii. Whether the impugned Award is patently illegal and in conflict with the Public Policy of India. Issue no. 1

52. The impugned findings of Arbitrator on the question of agreement being determinable while declaring the Arbitral Award are enclosed below:

―47. I will first deal with the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that agreement being determinable under Clauses 9 thereof, is not capable of being specifically enforced under Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:2814 plea of the learned counsel for the Claimant that Section 14(1)(c) is not at all attracted to the facts of the case.

58. Since, it has been settled that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited, it is now pertinent to see the considerations that are to be considered while adjudicating upon a challenge and in what circumstances may an Award may be set aside.

59. On a bare reading of the invoked provision Section 34 of the Arbitration Act as quoted above, it has become evident the words used therein are that "An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if", which signifies the intent of limiting the scope of interference by Courts in an Arbitral Award, passed after thorough procedure, involvement of parties, and appreciation of facts, evidence and law, "only" in the event of the circumstances delineated in the provision being met. The limited grounds which may invite the intervention and action thereupon by the Courts are explicitly laid down under the provision. What is to be seen by a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is that an Award passed by an Arbitral Tribunal may only be set aside if it is patently illegal, against the public policy of India, based on no evidence and delineates no reason for passing the Award.

94. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., wherein this Court was considering the meaning and import of the expression "public policy of India" as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award. Speaking for the Court M.B. Shah, J. held that the expression NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:2814 "public policy of India" appearing in the Act aforementioned must be given a liberal meaning for otherwise resolution of disputes by resort to arbitration proceedings will get frustrated because patently illegal awards would remain immune to court's interference. This Court declared that what was against public good and public interest cannot be held to be consistent with public policy. The following passage aptly summed up the approach to be adopted in the matter: (Saw Pipes Ltd. case, SCC pp. 727-28, para 31) ―31. Therefore, in our view, the phrase 'public policy of India' used in Section 34 in context is required to be given a wider meaning. It can be stated that the concept of public policy connotes some matter which concerns public good and the public interest. What is for public good or in public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or public interest has varied from time to time. However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to the term 'public policy' in Renusagar case it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal. The result would be-award could be set aside if it is contrary to: