Delhi High Court
Hamilton Heights Pvt. Ltd. vs M/ S Krishna Buildestates Pvt. ... on 10 September, 2021
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 10th September, 2021
O.M.P. (COMM) 496/2018 & I.A. 17981/2019 & 10369/2020
HAMILTON HEIGHTS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Saurabh Kirpal, Senior
Advocate with Mr Brijesh
Chaudhary and Ms Prins Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
M/ S KRISHNA BUILD ESTATES
PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Vaibhav Gaggar, Advocate
with Ms Sumeda Dang, Ms
Mrityunjay Mahendra,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act')
impugning an arbitral award dated 30.06.2018 (hereafter the 'impugned
award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole
Arbitrator.
2. The disputes between the parties relate to the amount claimed by
the respondent as due and payable for the work executed pursuant to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
their agreement dated 11.11.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that
the respondent had overbilled and was overpaid up to the 12th RA Bill.
The petitioner contends that impugned award, which accepts the
amount payable to the respondent against the 14th RA Bill, is patently
illegal as the 14th RA Bill raised by the respondent included
consideration for construction work at the 14th Floor of the building,
Tower 'C' at Hamilton Heights, Sector 27, Faridabad, Haryana, which
was admittedly not constructed.
Factual Context
3. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of developing
residential group housing projects.
4. In 2013, the parties entered into negotiations for carrying out
construction of the civil structure and finishing work of Tower D and
finishing work of Tower C at Hamilton Heights, 37, Tilpat Palla Road,
Faridabad 121003, Haryana (hereafter the 'project'). The negotiations
culminated in the petitioner issuing a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated
26.06.2013 in favour of the respondent.
5. Thereafter, on 11.11.2013, the parties entered into an agreement
(hereafter 'the Agreement') in respect of the aforesaid project, whereby
the respondent agreed to execute the subject works at a total value of
₹19,41,12,925/-. The Agreement incorporated the LOI by reference.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
6. It is not disputed that the petitioners made payments for the RA
Bills up to the 12th RA Bill. However, disputes arose between the parties
in respect of amounts charged under the 14th RA Bill dated 15.10.2015
for the work done during the period 01.08.2015 to 30.09.2015.
7. The petitioner sought to terminate the Agreement on 15.01.2016.
On 18.01.2016, the petitioner sent a revised 14th RA Bill for the work
done from 01.08.2015 to 15.01.2016.
8. On 02.03.2016, the respondent preferred a petition under Section
9 of the A&C Act, (being O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 69/2016) restraining the
petitioner from terminating or foreclosing the Agreement and to direct
the parties to undertake a joint measurement for finalization of the 14th
RA Bill. By an order dated 01.04.2016, this Court appointed Mr Baldev
Raj, Assistant Engineer (Civil), PWD, Government of NCT of Delhi, as
the Local Commissioner for measuring the work carried out by the
respondent, which was the subject matter of the 14th RA Bill. The Local
Commissioner was also directed to supervise the removal of the
material and equipment at the site by the respondent and, to further
prepare an inventory of the material/equipment, the possession of which
was taken by the respondent. The report was submitted by the Local
Commissioner on 17.04.2016.
9. Since the disputes relating to the 14th RA Bill were not resolved,
the parties referred the disputes to arbitration. The arbitral proceedings
culminated in the impugned award.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
10. The claims made by the respondent in its Statement of Claims
filed before the Arbitral Tribunal, are summarized as under:
Claim Particulars
Claim (a) Declaration that termination of the Agreement
between the parties is illegal and void
Claim (b) Outstanding payment amounting to ₹ 2,28,89,904/-
towards the 13th and 14th RA Bills
Claim (c) Release of retention amount of a sum of ₹
40,00,000/-
Claim (d) Release of ₹ 28,49,096/- withheld on account of
reconciliation towards cement and steel against the
7th running bill
Claim (e) Expenses incurred due to illegal termination
towards demobilization amounting to ₹ 8,04,600/-
Claim (f) Reimbursement in respect of material procured for
construction amounting to ₹4,38,126/-
Claim (g) Interest payment at the rate of 18% on account of
delayed payment
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
Claim (h) An amount of ₹10,00,000/- towards excessive
overheads due to delay, resulting in time over-run
for the period February 2015 to April 2016
Claim (i) A sum of ₹13,35,050/- towards certain tools and
plant equipment lying at the plant site not returned
Claim (j) A sum of ₹18,62,799/- towards idling cost of
equipment and machinery for the period December
2015 to April 2016
Claim (k) A sum of ₹1,22,40,595/- as loss of profit
Claim (l) Amount of ₹50,00,000/- deposited for purchase of
flats, in lieu of pending payments
Claim (m) Cost of litigation amounting to ₹20,00,000/- plus
cost of arbitration
Claim (n) Interest at the rate of 18% per annum towards pre-
suit, pendant-lite and future interest on the awarded
amount
11. The petitioner also raised a counter-claim for a sum of
₹92,43,000/- on account of amounts allegedly over-paid to the
respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
12. The Arbitral Tribunal considered the rival contentions and partly
allowed the claims preferred by the respondent. The Arbitral Tribunal
held that the termination of the Agreement was illegal as the petitioner
had not issued any prior notice, as required under Clause 64 of the
General Conditions of Contract (GCC), to the respondent before
terminating the Agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted the
respondent's contention that there was some confusion in describing the
works mentioned in the 14th RA Bill, as the ceiling of the 13th floor was
also the floor for the 14th floor. The 14th RA Bill was subsequently
corrected. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted that the respondent had
executed the work as claimed by it. This was also verified by the Local
Commissioner appointed by this Court.
13. The Arbitral Tribunal rendered the impugned award in favour of
the respondent awarding (i) release of the retention money amounting
₹40,00,000/-; (ii) refund of ₹11,82,840.18 towards steel reconciliation;
(iii) an amount of ₹8,04,600/- as expenses incurred towards
demobilisation due to illegal termination of the contract; and (iv) a sum
of ₹4,38,160/- as reimbursement of material procured for construction.
In respect of the claim made under the 14th RA Bill, the Arbitral
Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date
of the corrected 14th RA Bill till its realisation. The Arbitral Tribunal
also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded
amounts from the date of the arbitral award till its realisation.
Submissions
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
14. Mr Kirpal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
has assailed the impugned award on the sole ground that the Arbitral
Tribunal had grossly erred in accepting the respondent's explanation
regarding the 14th RA Bill for construction on the 14th floor even though
it was admitted that no construction was carried out on the 14th floor.
He submitted that the respondent had raised three bills for the said
period. He drew the attention of this Court to the 'RA-14th Bill' (at page
500 of the documents filed by the petitioner) and pointed out that the
said bill clearly specified the construction allegedly carried out on the
14th floor including construction in relation to the toilets, rooms, marble
skirting, doors etc. He stated that it was clear from the bill that the
respondent was claiming payment for construction carried out on the
14th floor of Tower 'C' of the project. However, it was admitted that no
construction was carried out on the 14th floor of Tower 'C'. He
submitted that the respondent had attempted to explain the said invoice
by contending that there was some confusion as the ceiling of the 13th
floor is also the floor of the 14th floor and, this explanation was
erroneously accepted by the Arbitral Tribunal.
15. He submitted that the respondent's aforesaid explanation was
wholly without merit as the bill in question was not restricted to work
carried out on the floor or the ceiling, but also in respect of the toilets,
rooms/toilet walls, marble skirting and marble staircase, internal doors
as well as main doors amongst other works allegedly executed. He
contended that the impugned award was therefore, vitiated on the
ground of patent illegality on the face of the award.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
16. He submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had also grossly erred in
proceeding on the basis that the report submitted by the Local
Commissioner was admitted by the petitioner. However, the petitioner
had no occasion to object to the report and the contents of the same
were, in any event, required to be proved.
17. He further submitted that the respondent was complicit with the
Project Manager employed by the petitioner and he had certified the
bills in respect of works that were not executed.
Reasons and Conclusion
18. The disputes between the parties essentially relate to the bills
raised by the respondent for executing the works under the Agreement.
According to the petitioner, the respondent had raised bills for work
over and above of what was executed. The petitioner had made
payments against the RA Bills till the 12th RA Bill. However, it had not
made payments against the 13th and 14th RA Bills. According to the
petitioner, the respondent was not entitled to payment of the said bills
as it had not executed the work as claimed. The petitioner claimed that
the respondent had been overpaid as the respondent had over-invoiced
the 12 RA Bills, which were cleared. Accordingly, the petitioner had
raised a counter claim of ₹92.43 lacs being the amount allegedly
overpaid to the respondent.
19. In view of the disputes between the parties, the respondent
apprehended that the petitioner would hand over the site to another
agency without clearing its bills. In these circumstances, the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
filed a petition (being O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 69/2016) before this Court
under Section 9 of the A&C Act, inter alia, praying that the petitioner
be restrained from terminating the Agreement dated 11.11.2013 and/or
appointing any other agency to execute the works without clearing its
dues. The respondent also prayed that directions be issued for joint
measurement of the work completed by the respondent for finalising the
amounts payable to it.
20. The said petition - OMP(I)(COMM) 69/2016 captioned Krishna
Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Hamilton Heights Pvt. Ltd. - was taken up on
15.03.2016 and this Court appointed a Local Commissioner for
measuring the work carried out by the respondent. The said order is set
out below:
"Notice was issued on this petition limited to
prayer (b), (c) and (d).
Mr. Sachin Datta, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent would submit that insofar
as the prayer (b) is concerned, in terms of the contractual
stipulation, it is the Project Manager, who has to carry
out the measurements. He states, even though
measurements of 14th A.R.A. bill was carried out by the
respondent, he has no objection if the measurements are
taken afresh by the Project Manager under the
supervision of Local Commissioner to be appointed by
this Court, at the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Gaggar, learned counsel for the petitioner
suggests otherwise inasmuch as the Local
Commissioner be appointed, who would carry out the
measurements in the presence of the Project Manager.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
The suggestion made by Mr. Gaggar seems to be
reasonable.
Insofar as prayer at serial No. (c) is concerned, Mr.
Datta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent states,
material and equipment are under lock and key of the
petitioner and can be taken out by the petitioner in the
presence of the Local Commissioner to be appointed by
this Court.
Having considered the submissions, I accordingly
appoint Mr. S.R. Pandey, Retired DG, C.P.W.D.
(Mobile No.9810275731) who is in the panel of the
Arbitrators of Delhi International Arbitration Centre as
the Local Commissioner, for measuring the work
carried out by the petitioner herein, which was the
subject matter of the 14th A.R.A. bill. He shall be within
his right to take the assistance of the Project Manager of
the respondent as well as the representative of the
petitioner. The measurements shall be carried out on or
before March 20, 2016. The Local Commissioner shall
also supervise the removal of the material and
equipment lying at the site by the petitioner on a date
convenient to both the parties but not later than 10 days
from today. The Local Commissioner shall prepare the
inventory of the Materials/equipment taken possession
by the petitioner. He shall file a report in the Court
within 10 days of completing the commission as
aforestated.
Insofar as the prayer at serial No. (e) is concerned,
let reply to the prayer (e) be filed within a week.
Rejoinder within a week thereafter.
List on April 19, 2016.
Dasti under the signatures of Court Master."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
21. It is clear from the above that the petitioner had consented that
the works executed by the respondent be measured afresh by the Local
Commissioner with the assistance of the Project Manager.
22. The Local Commissioner, so appointed, had expressed his
inability to execute the commission and by an order dated 22.03.2016,
Mr K.K. Varma, Retired Additional Director General, CPWD was
appointed as the Local Commissioner to carry out the commission in
lieu of Mr Pandey. Mr K.K. Varma, was also unable to conduct the
commission and accordingly, by an order dated 01.04.2016, this Court
appointed Mr Baldev Raj, Assistant Engineer, PWD as the Local
Commissioner to carry out the commission in terms of the order dated
15.03.2016.
23. It is not disputed that the Local Commissioner had carried out the
commission and had measured the work done in the presence of the
representatives of both parties. The report of the Local Commissioner
was submitted to this Court. The said petition [OMP(I)(COMM)
69/2016] was disposed of by an order dated 22.07.2016 permitting the
respondent to present the application before the Arbitral Tribunal to be
considered in terms of Section 17 of the A&C Act.
24. Thus, the contention that the petitioner had no opportunity to
object to the report of the Local Commissioner, is unmerited. The
impugned award clearly indicates that the Arbitral Tribunal had
examined the material available on record and the evidence led by the
parties to adjudicate the dispute regarding the balance amount payable
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
to the respondent. The Arbitral Tribunal had noted that the parties had
filed large volume of documents giving minute details of the quantity
of work done. After examining the documents, the Arbitral Tribunal
concluded that there was no substantial dispute regarding the amounts
billed and paid up to the 12th RA Bill. The Tribunal noted that although
there were minor discrepancies, however, both parties were
substantially in agreement with the value of work done till the 12th RA
Bill. In the aforesaid context, the controversy largely related to whether
the respondent was entitled to the difference between the value of work
done till the 14th RA Bill and the work done and billed up to the 12th RA
Bill.
25. The Arbitral Tribunal had accepted the measurement of work
executed, as submitted by the Local Commissioner appointed by this
Court, in his report.
26. The petitioner's case that the respondent had raised inflated bills
by forging the signatures of its Project Manager was also rejected on
the basis of evaluation of evidence and material placed on record. This
is clear from the following extract from the impugned award:
"19. One of the pleas raised by the respondent against
non-payment of 13th & 14th RA bills was that the
claimant had been raising inflated bills vis-a-vis the
unscheduled items by forging signatures of its Project
Manager in order to show that the approvals of non-
scheduled items had been duly granted by the Project
Manager. Accordingly, it was submitted that payments
due under 13th & 14th RA bills were adjusted against
over payment. However, in this regard its own witness
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
could not stand the test of cross-examination. The
following extract from the cross-examination of RWI
Mr. Rajneesh Gupta would bear this out.
"It is correct that the signatures at page 3 & 4
(Ex.CW-1/14E, CW-1/14F) and pages 6 to 8 (Ex.CW-
1/14H, CW-1/14I, CW-1/14J) of the additional
documents are the signatures of my Project Manager.
Again says these signatures are forged. I do not
remember the date of knowledge of the purported
forgery. I had issued communication in writing that the
signatures are forged but I do not remember the date of
such communication. It is incorrect to suggest that no
such communication has been addressed and no such
communication has been produced on record. We have
carried out handwriting analysis matching the
signatures of the Project Manager with the signatures of
the document at Page 3 & 4 and 6 to 8. I matched the
said signature with the scanned copy of the signatures
of the Project Manager. Again said that the signatures
were superimposed on the document. I do not remember
if the Respondent requested the claimant to provide the
original of the document. I do not remember the name
who carried out the handwriting analysis. I do not
remember the contents of the purported report. It is
incorrect to suggest that there was any forgery or
superimposition on pages 3, 4 and 6 to 8 of the
additional documents. I have not filed any police
complaint in relation to such purported forgery."
20. It will be seen from from above that the witness was
evasive. He was approbating and reprobating. Though
he said that he had issued communications in writing
that signatures were forged but he did not remember the
date of such communications nor any such
communication was produced on the record. He also
said " we have carried out handwriting analysis
matching the signature of Project Manager with the
signature on the documents at Pages 3&4 and 6-8 ". He
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
then said he matched the said signatures. The question
is who was he? Was he a handwriting expert? Certainly
not. He was therefore nobody to have pronounced a
judgement on the authenticity of a document. The
handwriting expert is the best person in a matter like
this, to whom no reference seemed to have been made,
and even if made as claimed by the witness neither his
report was placed on record nor was he summoned as a
witness. And what also begs an answer is, if really
forgery was committed, why no police complaint was
made against the claimant, more so when such an act on
the part of the claimant was causing huge financial loss
to the respondent.
21. The aforesaid witness in his testimony dated 21st
March 2018 claimed that the respondent had carried out
2-3 internal audits and one external audit. In so far as
internal audit is concerned, none of the auditors, who
allegedly carried out the audit were produced as witness
nor any audit report has been placed on record. As
regards the external audit, its auditor Shri Pradeep
Kumar Garg did appear as a witness, but his testimony
is totally uninspiring. To start with he did not have a
letter of appointment in his favour to conduct the audit.
It was his wife Ms. Preeti Garg, who was actually
engaged. He admitted that he had not done any course
relating to Chartered Accountancy. He further admitted
that he had not maintained any document which
reflected the date on which he visited the site.
22. It emerged from his cross-examination that he had
not made any working computation which was signed
by the claimant. He did not remember whether working
computation was provided to the claimant. He did not
remember whether a document was prepared which
indicated that a particular item had not been executed.
He did not remember the date of 14 A RA bill. He was
not able to produce a contemporaneous record which
reflected a revised rate for extra items, though he
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
claimed that the rates were revised. He was also not able
to produce any document signed by the claimant which
reflected that there was doubling / or grossly inflated
quantity. However, he did agree with the measurements
of Local Commissioner.
23. The above evidence in the form of audit reports
which was sought to be authenticated through the
testimony of RW-1 and more particularly through RW-
2 is a failed attempt on the part of the respondent to
create evidence in its favour. The audit report is a self
serving document , which its author failed to prove and
in any case it was prepared without in any way
involving the claimant in the audit process. Hence, such
a report cannot be used against the claimant to its
detriment.
24. One other aspect, about which much was sought to
be made out was that the claimant had billed the
respondent for 14th floor, which in fact was never built.
On this score, it may be noted that claimant also does
not dispute that 14th floor was not constructed. However
claimant explained that it was to build 13 floors
including the ground floor. After 13th floor was built, the
roof of that floor came to form foundation for the 14th
floor and that is why the confusion arose and bills were
prepared referring to the construction as 14th floor RA
bill which were later corrected to 14th RA. In any case
what is the fuss about, as ultimately it the measurements
and not nomenclature which matter. As the Local
commissioner had verified the work done and his report
has been accepted by both sides, the controversy has
been needlessly raised."
27. It is apparent from the above that the petitioner's contention that
the respondent had sought payments under the 14th RA Bill for work
that was never executed was rejected, as the Arbitral Tribunal had
accepted that the entire work done was verified and measured by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
Local Commissioner in the presence of the representatives of both the
parties.
28. In view of the above, the petitioner's contention that the
impugned award is vitiated on account of patent illegality is founded on
the basis that the Arbitral Tribunal has committed an error in evaluation
and appreciation of evidence led by the parties and the material placed
before the Arbitral Tribunal. The said contention is unmerited.
29. It is well settled that the court cannot re-examine and re-evaluate
the evidence as a court of first appeal and supplant its opinion in place
of that of the Arbitral Tribunal. The arbitral award can be interfered
with only on the grounds as set out in Section 34(2) and 34(2A) of the
A&C Act. The award would be vitiated by patent illegality if it is found
that the illegality goes to the root of the matter. A mere error in
appreciation of evidence does not vitiate an arbitral award.
30. In Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd.: Civil Appeal No. 5627/2021, decided on 09.09.2021,
the Supreme Court had once again explained the concept of patent
illegality that would render an arbitral award liable to be set aside under
Section 34(2A) of the A&C Act. The relevant extract of the said
decision is set out below:
"24. This Court has in several other judgments
interpreted Section 34 of the 1996 Act to stress on the
restraint to be shown by courts while examining the
validity of the arbitral awards. The limited grounds
available to courts for annulment of arbitral awards are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
well known to legally trained minds. However, the
difficulty arises in applying the well-established
principles for interference to the facts of each case that
come up before the courts. There is a disturbing
tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards, after
dissecting and reassessing factual aspects of the cases to
come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention
and thereafter, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either
perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other
grounds available for annulment of the award. This
approach would lead to corrosion of the object of the
1996 Act and the endeavours made to preserve this
object, which is minimal judicial interference with
arbitral awards. That apart, several judicial
pronouncements of this Court would become a dead
letter if arbitral awards are set aside by categorising
them as perverse or patently illegal without appreciating
the contours of the said expressions.
25. Patent illegality should be illegality which goes to
the root of the matter. In other words, every error of law
committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall
within the expression 'patent illegality'. Likewise,
erroneous application of law cannot be categorised as
patent illegality. In addition, contravention of law not
linked to public policy or public interest is beyond the
scope of the expression 'patent illegality'. What is
prohibited is for courts to re-appreciate evidence to
conclude that the award suffers from patent illegality
appearing on the face of the award, as courts do not sit
in appeal against the arbitral award. The permissible
grounds for interference with a domestic award under
Section 34(2-A) on the ground of patent illegality is
when the arbitrator takes a view which is not even a
possible one, or interprets a clause in the contract in
such a manner which no fair-minded or reasonable
person would, or if the arbitrator commits an error of
jurisdiction by wandering outside the contract and
dealing with matters not allotted to them. An arbitral
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
award stating no reasons for its findings would make
itself susceptible to challenge on this account. The
conclusions of the arbitrator which are based on no
evidence or have been arrived at by ignoring vital
evidence are perverse and can be set aside on the ground
of patent illegality. Also, consideration of documents
which are not supplied to the other party is a facet of
perversity falling within the expression 'patent
illegality'.
26. Section 34 (2) (b) refers to the other grounds on
which a court can set aside an arbitral award. If a dispute
which is not capable of settlement by arbitration is the
subject-matter of the award or if the award is in conflict
with public policy of India, the award is liable to be set
aside. Explanation (1), amended by the 2015
Amendment Act, clarified the expression 'public policy
of India' and its connotations for the purposes of
reviewing arbitral awards. It has been made clear that an
award would be in conflict with public policy of India
only when it is induced or affected by fraud or
corruption or is in violation of Section 75 or Section 81
of the 1996 Act, if it is in contravention with the
fundamental policy of Indian law or if it is in conflict
with the most basic notions of morality or justice. In
Ssangyong (supra), this Court held that the meaning of
the expression 'fundamental policy of Indian law'
would be in accordance with the understanding of this
Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric
Co. In Renusagar (supra), this Court observed that
violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
1973, a statute enacted for the 'national economic
interest', and disregarding the superior courts in India
would be antithetical to the fundamental policy of
Indian law. Contravention of a statute not linked to
public policy or public interest cannot be a ground to set
at naught an arbitral award as being discordant with the
fundamental policy of Indian law and neither can it be
brought within the confines of 'patent illegality' as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
discussed above. In other words, contravention of a
statute only if it is linked to public policy or public
interest is cause for setting aside the award as being at
odds with the fundamental policy of Indian law. If an
arbitral award shocks the conscience of the court, it can
be set aside as being in conflict with the most basic
notions of justice. The ground of morality in this context
has been interpreted by this Court to encompass awards
involving elements of sexual morality, such as
prostitution, or awards seeking to validate agreements
which are not illegal but would not be enforced given
the prevailing mores of the day.
27. In light of the principles elucidated herein for
interference with an arbitral award by a court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, we
proceed to consider the questions that arise in these
Appeals as to whether the Division Bench of the High
Court was right in setting aside the award of the Arbitral
Tribunal dated 11.05.2017."
31. In the present case, this Court is unable to accept that the
impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of
the award. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending
applications are also dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
RK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
