Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)Section 11 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 16 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
15. At the outset, it is pertinent to outline the scope of interference with
the arbitral awards under section 34 of the 1996 Act. The scope of
interference by a court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, is statutorily
limited and judicially well-settled. It has time and again been held that
section 34 of the 1996 Act does not envisage a review of the arbitral
award on merits, nor does it permit re-appreciation of evidence. The
Court's intervention is confined to limited grounds such as lack of
jurisdiction, breach of principles of natural justice, patent illegality, or
if the award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law or
Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 142/2020 Page 11 of 29
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:15.07.2025
19:23:11
public policy. Reliance is placed on the following judgment(s) - (1)
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC
49; (2) Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation Limited, (2022) 1 SCC 131; (3) Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Boghara Polyfab Pvt.Ltd on 18 September, 2008
"34. This decision was explained by this Court in Boghara
Polyfab (supra).
Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2010 (In Re: Sugar ... vs 2.2.1 National Federation Of ... on 30 November, 2011
In Associate Builders v. DDA [Associate Builders v.
DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , a two-
Judge Bench of this Court held that although the
interpretation of a contract is exclusively within the domain
of the arbitrator, construction of a contract in a manner that
no fair-minded or reasonable person would take, is
impermissible. A patent illegality arises where the
arbitrator adopts a view which is not a possible view. A
view can be regarded as not even a possible view where no
reasonable body of persons could possibly have taken it.
This Court held with reference to Sections 28(1)(a) and
28(3), that the arbitrator must take into account the terms of
the contract and the usages of trade applicable to the
Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 142/2020 Page 26 of 29
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:15.07.2025
19:23:11
transaction. The decision or award should not be perverse
or irrational. An award is rendered perverse or irrational
where the findings are:
Patel Engineering Ltd. vs North Eastern Electric Power ... on 22 May, 2020
39. In essence, the ground of patent illegality is available
for setting aside a domestic award, if the decision of the
arbitrator is found to be perverse, or so irrational that no
reasonable person would have arrived at it; or the
construction of the contract is such that no fair or
reasonable person would take; or, that the view of the
arbitrator is not even a possible view. [Patel Engg. Ltd. v.
North Eastern Electric Power Corpn. Ltd., (2020) 7 SCC
167 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 149.] A "finding" based on no
evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in
arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be
set aside under the head of "patent illegality". An award
without reasons would suffer from patent illegality. The
arbitrator commits a patent illegality by deciding a matter
not within his jurisdiction or violating a fundamental
principle of natural justice.