Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
and McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181]) .
13. It is relevant to note that after the 2015 Amendment to Section 34, the above position stands somewhat modified. Pursuant to the insertion of Explanation 1 to Section 34(2), the scope of contravention of Indian public policy has been modified to the extent that it now means fraud or corruption in the making of the award, violation of of Section 75 or Section 81 of the Act, contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, and conflict with the most basic notions of justice or morality. Additionally, sub-section (2-A) has been inserted in rt Section 34, which provides that in case of domestic arbitrations, violation of Indian public policy also includes patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. The proviso to the same states that an award shall not be set aside merely on the grounds of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence.
award contains reasons, the. interference therewith would still be not available within the jurisdiction of the Court unless, of course, the reasons are totally perverse or the judgment is based on a wrong proposition of law"
28. This enunciation has been endorsed in several cases (Ref McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co.
of Ltd.18). In MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd v. State of Rajasthan it was held that an error in interpretation of a contract by an arbitrator is "an error within his jurisdiction". The rt position was spelt out even more clearly in Associate Builders (supra), where the court said that:
the respondents was 3.72 days (say 4 days) after applying some formula.
21. Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate submitted that the adoption of this formula by the learned Arbitrator is unknown to of Engineering and Legal Circles. He relied upon the judgment of rt the Hon'ble Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc. v.
Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 600 to submit that only the Hudson formula, Emden formula and Eichleay formula have been recognized by the Engineers as well as the Judicial authorities. He relied upon the following paragraphs:-
Further, the challenge to the said award has been set up under Section 34 about the deficiencies in the arbitral award which may be curable by allowing the Arbitral Tribunal to take such measures which can eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. No power has been invested by Parliament in the Court to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings for the limited purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 34. This legal position has been expounded in McDermott International Inc. [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181] In para 8 of the said decision, the Court observed thus : (Bhaskar Industrial case [Bhaskar Industrial Development Ltd. v. South Western Railway, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8330], SCC OnLine Kar) "8. ... Parliament has not conferred any power of remand to the Court to remit the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Act. The object of sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Act is to give an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings or to .