Delhi High Court reaffirms principle of minimum interference in arbitral awards

By - Ankita Mishra, Associate, Solomon & Co.

In a recent judgment passed in Union of India v. M/s Parishudh Machines Pvt. Ltd^[^] the Delhi High Court, reinforced the principle that the findings of an arbitral tribunal, particularly regarding the assessment of evidence, should be respected and upheld unless there is a compelling reason to interfere. The case underscores the limited scope of judicial intervention in arbitral awards, which is a cornerstone of arbitration law aimed at preserving the finality and integrity of the arbitration process.

1. Background

The dispute between the Ministry of Railways (“Railways”) and M/s Parishudh Machines Private Limited (“Parishudh”) arose from a contract awarded by the Railways for the supply of a CNC Twin Spindle Chucker machine. The contract stipulated a delivery period of 300 days to the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi, with the deadline later extended twice. After the final extension, the Railways refused further delays and terminated the contract when the delivery was not completed on time. The dispute was referred to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled in favour of Parishudh, awarding them 70% of the machine’s cost along with interest.

Dissatisfied with the arbitral award, the Railways approached the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) seeking to set aside the award. The Commercial Court dismissed their petition, prompting the Railways to file an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act before the Delhi High Court.

2. High Court’s Observations and Rulings

The primary issues before the Delhi High Court were twofold: whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s findings, particularly regarding the evidence, were correct and whether the tribunal was biased in its decision-making.

a. Allegations of Bias

The Railways argued that the Arbitral Tribunal was biased, primarily because it considered documents submitted by Parishudh during the final stages of the arbitration. The High Court dismissed these allegations, noting that the Tribunal had allowed the submission of additional documents after recognizing their critical importance in resolving the dispute. Importantly, the Tribunal’s decision to accept these documents was well-reasoned, and there was no indication of partiality. The High Court emphasized that allegations of bias must be substantiated with clear evidence, which was absent in the present case.

b. Assessment of Evidence and Interpretation of Contractual Terms

The Railways contended that Parishudh had delayed the contract’s performance, justifying the termination and negating any liability for damages. They invoked specific contractual clauses that emphasized the importance of timely delivery and provided for liquidated damages in the event of delays. The High Court, however, pointed out that the Tribunal had carefully considered these contractual terms and found that the delays were significantly attributable to the Railways themselves. Factors such as delayed approvals, late site handovers, and the failure to provide necessary components were all found to have contributed to the delay.

The High Court reaffirmed that the Arbitral Tribunal is the “master of evidence,” meaning that its evaluation of evidence, if reasonable, should not be re-examined by courts as though on appeal. This principle is critical in arbitration, where the arbitrator’s role as a factfinder is central to the process. The Court further emphasized that judicial intervention under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to instances of patent illegality or cases where the arbitral award is so perverse that it shocks the conscience of the court. In this case, the High Court found no such issues and upheld the arbitral award.

The Delhi High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents^[^] to reiterate that errors in contract interpretation are within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and should not attract judicial correction unless they constitute gross illegality or irrationality.

In reinforcing the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitral awards, the Court also relied on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI^[^] wherein it had been held that courts should refrain from interfering with arbitral awards that are well-reasoned and present a plausible view, even if a judge might personally favour a different interpretation. The Court emphasized that the judicial inclination to adopt a “corrective lens” is inappropriate under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act. Errors in contract interpretation are within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, and unless there is a clear case of patent illegality or perverse reasoning, the arbitrator’s decision must be respected and left undisturbed.

Conclusion

The judgment serves as a robust affirmation of the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitral awards. By respecting the arbitrator’s role as the master of evidence and limiting its review to cases of evident illegality, the Court has reinforced the autonomy of the arbitration process. This judgment not only upholds the sanctity of arbitration but also sends a clear message to parties that the finality of arbitral awards will be maintained, barring exceptional circumstances and that judicial interference is only warranted in cases of blatant errors or procedural unfairness, ensuring that arbitration remains an effective and efficient method of resolving commercial disputes.

– Ankita Mishra, Associate, Solomon & Co.

About Solomon & Co.

Solomon & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) was founded in 1909 and is amongst India’s oldest law-firms. The Firm is a full-service firm that provides legal service to Indian and international companies and high net-worth individuals on all aspects of Indian law.

“Disclaimer”

The information contained in this article is intended solely to provide general guidance on matters of interest for the personal use of the reader, who accepts full responsibility for its use. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with a competent adviser. Before making any decision or taking any action, the reader should always consult a professional adviser relating to the relevant article posting.