Held: Awards which contain reasons, especially when they interpret contractual terms, ought not to be interfered with, lightly – Prevailing view about the standard of scrutiny- not judicial review, of an award, by persons of the disputants’ choice being that of their decisions to standand not interfered with, save a small area where it is established that such a view is premised on patent illegality or their interpretation of the facts or terms, perverse, as to qualify for interference – Judges tend to adopt a corrective lens; usually, commended for appellate review, however, it is unavailable when exercising jurisdiction u/s. 34 – Courts cannot, through process of primary contract interpretation, thus, create pathways to the kind of review which is forbidden u/s. 34 – So viewed, the Division Bench’s approach, of appellate review, u/s. 37, and conclusions drawn by it, resulted in displacing the majority view of the tribunal, as also the unanimous view – As long as the view adopted by the majority was plausible and there is no reason to hold otherwise, such a substitution was impermissible – Judgments passed by the High Court are set aside – Awards, which were the subject matter of challenge, and to the extent they were set aside, are upheld and restored. [Paras 22, 23, 28] Arbitration – Arbitral award – Dissenting opinion of the arbitrator – Relevance of:
Held: Dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside – It might provide useful clues in case there is a procedural issue which becomes critical during the challenge – When a majority award is challenged by the aggrieved party, the focus of the court and the aggrieved party is to point out the errors or illegalities in the majority award – Minority award or dissenting opinion only embodies the views of the arbitrator disagreeing with the majority – There is no occasion for the party aggrieved by the majority award, or, more crucially, the party who succeeds in the majority award, to challenge the soundness, plausibility, illegality or perversity in the approach or conclusions in the dissenting opinion – Dissenting opinion would not receive the level and standard of scrutiny which the majority award is subjected to – Thus, the so-called conversion of the dissenting opinion, into a tribunal’s fi ndings, in the event a majority award is set aside and elevation of that opinion as an award, would, be inappropriate and improper. [Para 27] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Corporation [2014] 13 SCR 895; BOC India Ltd. v. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. [2007] 3 SCR 915; Indian Oil Corporation v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar [2022]
16 SCR 450; PSA SICAL Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust [2021] 5 SCR 408; South East Asia Marine Engineering and Constructions Limited (SEAMEC Ltd) v. Oil India Ltd. [2020] 4 SCR 254; M/s. Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. DMRC [2017]
1 SCR 798; Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd v. DMRC [2021] 5 SCR 984; State of UP v. Allied Constructions [2003] Supp 2 SCR 55; McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [2006] Suppl. 2 SCR 409; MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd v. State of Rajasthan [2011] 9 SCR 402; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies (P) Ltd. [2021] 1 SCR 1135; Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI [2019] 7 SCR 522 – referred to.
David St. John Sutton, Judith Gill and Matthew Gearing QC, Russel on Arbitration, 24th Edn. (Sweet & Maxwell), p. 313; Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, Edn. 2009, Vol. II, p. 2466 & 2469 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.