The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Wishwa Mittar Bajaj & Sons vs BPTP Ltd consisting of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that only where the arbitral tribunal ignores unimpeachable evidence as to certain facts and renders a contrary finding, without any material supporting the same, the arbitral award may be amenable to challenge u/s 34 of the A&C Act.
Facts
The appellant filed this appeal u/s 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (‘the A&C Act’) impugning an order (‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant’s application u/s 34 of the A&C Act, seeking to set aside an arbitral award (‘the impugned award’), was rejected. Both the parties herein had entered into a contract regarding the work of construction of Towers for Group Housing Project (‘the Project’). However, when certain disputes arose, the appellant invoked the agreement to refer the same to arbitration.
Procedural History
This Court appointed the sole arbitrator to adjudicate whether the Settlement Agreement signed by the appellant was on account of any coercion, duress or undue pressure exercised by the respondent, to which it was held that the appellant had failed to establish the same. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the impugned award by filing an application u/s 34 of the A&C Act on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal had failed to take into account certain documents that were placed before it and rendered the impugned award solely on the ground that the appellant had signed the said Settlement Agreement. The learned Single Judge found the contentions of the appellant to be unmerited and held that a bald plea of fraud, coercion, duress or undue influence is not enough to undo settlement agreements.
Contentions Made
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Arbitral Tribunal had erred in ignoring the evidence and material regarding coercion, duress and undue pressure exerted on the appellant prior to foreclosure of the contract. It was also contended that the Arbitral Tribunal had found that the controversies regarding work and payments prior to foreclosure of the contract were not material to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. It was further contended that ignoring vital evidence would render the arbitral award susceptible to challenge u/s 34 of the A&C Act.
Observations of the Court
The Bench opined that there was no flaw in the reasoning of the Arbitral Tribunal. It observed that:
“The contention that the Arbitral Tribunal has ignored vital evidence, is unpersuasive. It is not necessary for the Arbitral Tribunal to give a finding on every piece of evidence or material that is placed on record. The Arbitral Tribunal has considered the material available on record and has taken an informed decision.”
It was further observed that:
“Where the arbitral tribunal ignores unimpeachable evidence as to certain facts and renders a contrary finding, without any material supporting the same, the arbitral award may be amenable to challenge u/s 34 of the A&C Act. Clearly, this principle is not applicable where the arbitral tribunal has considered the material placed on record and has disregarded certain evidence as not material. Unless the party assailing the arbitral award is able to establish that this decision is palpably erroneous and vitiates the award on the ground of patent illegality, no interference with the arbitral award would be warranted.”
Judgment
The Bench concluded that neither the impugned award was vitiated by patent illegality nor otherwise was against the public policy of India. The appeal was hereby dismissed.
Case: Wishwa Mittar Bajaj & Sons vs BPTP Ltd
Citation: FAO (OS) (COMM) 45/2018
Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Amit Mahajan
Decided on: 22nd August 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
