TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice of India, conflict with justice or morality and existence of patent illegality in the arbitral award. The concept of the fundamental policy of Indian law would cover compliance with statutes and judicial precedents, adopting a judicial approach, compliance with the principles of natural justice and reasonableness. As per the Section 34 of the Act, the award of the learned Arbitral Tribunal can be challenged on the ground if the award is contrary to the public policy, patent illegality and passed without any evidence. In the instant case, the main ground for challenging the award is that the learned Arbitral Tribunal while passing the award has not taken into consideration any evidence led by the parties, particularly, by the petitioner. The genesis of the dispute is to determine whether the petitioner was contractually liable to pay aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 3,89,92,930/- in respect of the taxes, levies and duties towards BOP to the respondent - The learned Arbitral Tribunal, while interpreting the Clause 14 of the Contract, reached on the conclusion that the petitioner is obligated to pay the taxes and duties and there is no difference between the payment of taxes and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urts. 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 therefore, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award. Hence, the law which has been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court is that the scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act is fairly limited and narrow. The Court shall not sit in an appeal while adjudicating a challenge to an award which is passed by an Arbitrator, the master of evidence, after due consideration of facts, circumstances, evidence and material before him. There are no reason to interfere in the impugned award as there is no perversity or illegality or error in the said award - petition dismissed. - O.M.P. (COMM) 50/2021 & I.A. 1863/2021 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2023 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH For the Petitioner Through: Appearance not given For the Respondent Through: Mr. Anish Kapur and Ms. Nikhita K. Suri, Advocates J U D G M E N T CHANDRA DHARI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The dispute, however, which has arisen between the parties pertains to the payment on account of Excise Duty and Central Sales Tax (CST). The contract stipulated that all applicable taxes and duties will be paid/reimbursed by the respondent to the claimant at actual. 5. The petitioner, in order to execute the aforesaid contract, had manufactured certain items/components of plants, equipments etc. of its own and some such equipments were got manufactured from third parties/sub-contractors, which the claimant was authorised to do as per the contract. The petitioner had reimbursed the respondent s Excise Duty and CST which had been paid by the respondent on the goods manufactured by it and supplied to the petitioner. However, for the goods which were got manufactured from the third parties, known as Bought Out Products (BOP) i.e., materials, parts and equipments, etc. procured for the project by the claimant from the approved sub-contractors, the petitioner refused to reimburse the Excise Duty and CST on the ground that in terms of the contract, the petitioner was under obligation to reimburse the Excise Duty and CST payable by the respondent only and it has no obligation to reimb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avings to the petitioner. In the instant case, CENVAT credit has been availed by the sub-contractor, a tax adjustment/reduction to that extent must be extended to the petitioner. However, no such benefit was extended and this fact has also not been considered by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. He has also referred the relevant Clause 14.3 of the GCC which is reproduced hereinbelow: Clause 14.3 of GCC Clause 14.3 - If any tax exemptions, reductions, allowances or privileges may be available to the Employer in the country where the Site is located, the Contractor shall extend all help to enable the Employer to benefit from any such tax savings to the maximum allowable extent. 9. It is submitted that there was no agreement between the parties for any further tax liability/burden upon the petitioner/employer. It is submitted that there is no Schedule similar to Schedule 7 of DEPL Contract which details the amount of taxes to be reimbursed. If the contention of the respondent, that it is entitled to the reimbursement of taxes on BOP items, is to be considered then, in light of the absence of a schedule similar to Schedule 7 of DEPL Contract, the amount actually deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SCC) that the respondent would provide specific documents namely (i) Copies of supply invoices (ii) Copies of sub-supplier invoices (iii) Central Excise attested copy of the ER-1 showing details of duty paid (iv) Disclaimer Certificate (v) CENVAT declaration. These documents especially Central Excise attested details of duty paid would have shown that the duty was actually paid. It is further submitted that in reply to the statement of claim, the petitioner took a wide defence stating that it was not liable to reimburse taxes on BOP items at all, however, in its written submissions filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner took a limited stand that it was liable to reimburse the taxes on BOP items only if the respondent produced all the above mentioned documents, which included the Central Excise attested ER-1 which showed the actual payments made to the excise authorities. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has also confirmed the above position on supply of documents by recording a finding to the effect that the deemed export benefit pertains to all the supplies in respect of the project and were not limited to those which we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner submitted that in view of the foregoing submissions, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. On behalf of the respondent 20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner is attempting to make an entirely new case before this Court. It was never the case of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal that the respondent had not furnished the requisite documents/evidence for the payment/reimbursement of taxes, duties and levies on BOP. It is submitted that on the contrary, the case set-up by the petitioner in its Statement of Defence before the learned Tribunal as follows: a. The term actuals in the Contract has to mean taxes, duties and levies payable by the Respondent to the exchequer and not by the Subcontractors to the exchequer. Since the taxes, duties and levies on BOP were paid by the subcontractors of the Respondent to the exchequer and not by the Respondent, the Petitioner was not liable to pay/ reimburse the same to the Respondent. The actual amount of taxes, duties and levies evidenced by the Tax Invoices on record, however, was not disputed. b. The taxes, duties and levies paid by the subcontractors t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des for the mechanism to enable the petitioner to obtain deals with Deemed Export Benefits . The documents listed in Clause 11.4 (c) were only required to be furnished by the respondent to assist and enable the petitioner to claim Deemed Export Benefits. This was not an issue or dispute between the parties. 26. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the same clauses of the Contract deal with both BOP as well as manufactured goods. The claimant never asked the respondent to provide the documents stipulated in Clause 11.4 (c) of the SCC for either BOP or manufactured products, yet it paid/reimbursed the respondent for the taxes, duties and levies on manufactured products. 27. It is submitted that it is settled law that no new case can be put up without there being any factual foundation for the same in the pleadings. There was no dispute between the parties regarding the actual amounts of taxes, duties and levies on BOP deposited with the exchequer. There were no factual averments or documents on record of the Tribunal in this regard. The petitioner cannot be allowed to make out a new case before this Court at this stage. 28. It is further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... public policy of India. As per the legal position clarified through decisions of this Court that violation of Public Policy, in turn, includes a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law, a violation of the interest of justice of India, conflict with justice or morality and existence of patent illegality in the arbitral award. The concept of the fundamental policy of Indian law would cover compliance with statutes and judicial precedents, adopting a judicial approach, compliance with the principles of natural justice and reasonableness. 35. It is only if one of the above conditions is met that the Court may interfere with an arbitral award in terms of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act but interference does not entail a review of the merits of the dispute and is limited to situations where the findings of the arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. An arbitral award may not be interfered with if the view taken by the arbitrator is a plausible view based on the facts. 36. The impugned award dated 14th October, 2020 has been challenged by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for successfully challenging an award under Section 34 of the Act are elaborated hereinunder: (a) Adjudicability:- An Arbitral Tribunal is empowered to decide for itself whether or not it has jurisdiction over a particular dispute under the doctrine of competence-competence . If its jurisdiction is challenged, the Arbitral Tribunal may decide the point as preliminary issue in an interim award or as part of its award on the merits. In the United States, the standard depends on whether the jurisdictional decision was based on compliance with procedural pre-conditions, in which case differential review applies or consent to arbitrate at all. (b) Another ground for challenge is that the Arbitral Tribunal has exceeded its power in the decision that it has rendered. This ground of challenge contemplates a situation in which an award has been made by the Tribunal that did have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, but which exceeded its powers by dealing with claims that had not been submitted to it. (c) Arbitrability:- The concept of Arbitrability which provides another ground to challenge the award. If any arbitration arises, it is necessary to have regard to relevant l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bitral Tribunal has reached the correct decision. 43. As per the Section 34 of the Act, the award of the learned Arbitral Tribunal can be challenged on the ground if the award is contrary to the public policy, patent illegality and passed without any evidence. In the instant case, the main ground for challenging the award is that the learned Arbitral Tribunal while passing the award has not taken into consideration any evidence led by the parties, particularly, by the petitioner. 44. I may now proceed to summarise the conclusions reached by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The relevant extract of the impugned award is reproduced as under: 6. POINTS OF DETERMINATION 6.1 Following points of differences were formulated by the Tribunal, which needed determination: (i) Whether the respondent is liable to pay to the claimant the taxes and duties on Bought Out Products (BOP) items under the contract dated 21.05.2019? (ii) Whether the respondent had made payments towards taxes and duties on Bought Out Products (BOP) items under the contract dated 21.05.2019? (iii) Whether the claims as raised by the claimant towards taxes and duties on Bought Out Products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred limitation. He pointed out that the contract in question was entered into on 21.05.2010 pursuant to which the claimant supplied equipment ete, including BOP items. As far as respondent is concerned, since the very commencement of the works of supply under the contract, it neither acknowledged nor paid taxes on BOP items. The claimant had raised the dispute and invoked arbitration vide communication dated 18.02.2019 According to Mr Khurana, the period of .. Xxxx 7.43 Last submission of Mr Khurana was that the claim as raised in the present proceedings had not been correctly computed. On this aspect, he submitted that the Claimant's claim of Rs. 3,92,92,680/- as raised in the present Arbitral proceedings, is based upon the working furnished at Page 930 of Volume III of the Statement of Claim. However, a perusal of the amounts mentioned at Page 930 vis- -vis the amounts mentioned in the corresponding documents filed by the Claimant itself in the present Arbitral proceedings, shows that the amounts mentioned at Page 930 and the computation thereof is incorrect. In this respect, the respondent relied upon a tabulated chart reflecting the said position. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be incorporated into the Facilities by the law of the country where the Site is located. Essentiality Certificate/Project Authority Certificate for the claim of Concessional rate/Exemption of Customs Duty as applicable for Project Import Advance Authorisation shall be provided by Employer. As per Import Export Policy (2008-2009), as applicable of Government of India, goods supplied for the project where procedure of International Competitive Bidding (ICB) has been followed, same shall be eligible for Deemed Export benefits. The Employer shall be solely responsible for obtaining such Deemed Export Benefits. For the Material/Items purchased outside the State of Sikkim, Road Permit and Form-C and other relevant statutory requirements to avail the Concessional Rate of CST shall be issued by the Employer. The above payment/reimbursement of taxes, duties as defined in Schedule 7 i.e. Excise Duty, Customs Duty, Central Sales Tax and Service Tax shall be restricted to the extent of Grant Total amount mentioned in Schedule No. 7 subject to GCC Clause 14.4 and 36. If any material/item as per the nomenclature mentioned in Bill of Quantities and invoiced by the contracto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and CST. This clause also states that even State and Local taxes levied on the contract shall be paid/ reimbursed by the respondent on actual. As far as Income Tax is concerned i.e., specifically excluded by mentioning that the same shall be borne by the claimant. Thus, apart from Income Tax i.e., the direct tax, all indirect taxes and duties were to be reimbursed by the respondent. Pertinently, this clause does not distinguish between the taxes and duties payable on manufactured items, the products which were manufactured by the claimant itself or BOP, i.e., the products which were got manufactured from sub-contractors. It is of some significance to note that, as per the contract, the claimant was not only permitted to get certain items manufactured from its sub-contractors, even the names of those sub-contractors are specifically mentioned in the contract. Therefore, it was agreed between the parties that certain items would be manufactured by the sub-contractors which are given the nomenclature of Bought Out Products (BOP). Notwithstanding the same, Clause 14.1 talks of all taxes and duties and does not exclude from its ambit taxes and duties payable on BOP. It will also be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion applicable in respect of taxes and duties would mean those taxes and duties which are applicable in law and on that basis, detailed submissions are made that insofar as Excise Duty is concerned, it is payable by the manufacturer and therefore, would have reference to the items manufactured by the claimant only as claimant is not manufacturer of the items which are produced by the sub-contractors. He also referred to the provisions of CST Act to contend that in respect of BOP, no CST was paid by the claimant and it was paid by the sub-contractors. It is difficult to accept these contentions constructed by the respondent around the expression applicable . The moment taxes and duties become applicable in respect of supplies to the respondent, they are reimbursable under Clause 14.1. That clause does not state that such taxes and duties were to be payable by the claimant directly to the Government. The expression applicable is to be understood in the context of manufacturing of the goods and not with reference to the person. It cannot be denied that on the supplies effected by the claimant to the respondent in respect of the said project, whether these were manufactured by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chequer. It cannot be said that the taxes in respect of BOP were not payable in law. Clause 14.2 of the GCC deems the transaction of purchase of the BOP goods from the sub-contractors to be a transaction between the claimant and the respondent. This deeming fiction is created only for the purpose of taxes and duties. Xxxx 8.13 The Respondent has sought to suggest that the use of the term 'sub-supplier' in clause 11.4(c) refers to the suppliers of raw materials to suggest that the clause is not at all applicable to BOP. Such a suggestion is contrary to the plain language of Clause 11 of the SCO It is of significance that Clause 11.2 uses the term 'supplier' for the Claimant (contractor), and thus, the term sub-supplier can only mean the subcontractors listed in Appendix 5. Even Appendix 5 to the Contract uses the term 'supplier' for the subcontractors. Further, any additional burden of excise duty upon the Respondent due to failure of the Claimant to fulfil its obligations in Clauses 11.1 to 11.4 and to provide the requisite documents to enable the Respondent to avail Deemed Export Benefits, is cast upon the Claimant in terms of Clause 11.5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d accordingly. 8.15 As is clear from the schedule which gives only estimates of taxes which were payable. Otherwise, it is made clear in the notes that these taxes and duties are only indicative as applicable as on 01.04.2009 and insofar as reimbursement of taxes and duties are concerned, the same shall be as per actual at the time of despatch or execution. This is in tune with Clause 14. Even in the absence of Schedule 7, the interpretation given by us to Clause 14 of GCC would not make any difference. It may be mentioned that if at all cap to reimbursement as provided in Schedule 7 also goes in the absence of such Schedule. It is a matter of record that on realising that Schedule 7 was missing. Amendment No. 4 dated 21.10.2014 to the contract was carried out in Clause 11 of GCC, which mentioned about existing clause as well as the amended clause and reads as under: S.No. Clause Reference Contract Clause Amendment Required CONTRACT AGREEMENT 01 Volume 1 (i) to chapter 1, Contract Agreement Supply Article 2, Cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 14 of GCC, in conjunction with other provisions of the contract, the respondent was obligated to pay/reimburse all taxes and duties including Excise Duty and CST in respect of items manufactured by the claimant itself as well as in respect of BOP. 8.18 Once we have arrived independently at the aforesaid conclusion on the interpretation of the contractual provisions that the respondent is liable to reimburse the claimant in respect taxes and duties in respect of BOP as well, it is not even necessary to go into the question as to whether the respondent had initially made: payments towards taxes on BOP or not. However, as the issue of limitation in raised, this aspect will have to be decided as it has bearing on the said question of limitation. 8.19 Whether payments were made by the respondent towards taxes on BOP? We have already taken note of the arguments of both the counsel on this aspect. In nutshell, the respondent argued that the claimant has itself set up a cane for an amount of Rs. 3,92,92,680 towards Excise Duty and CST on BOP and has even led evidence to this effect. If this was the amount which is worked out by the claimant towards Excise Duty and CST, and en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,19,500 14,72,614 01.07.16-Rs. 292614 and 27.07.15 Rs. 11,80,000 Aug 15 59,000 61,06,500 61,65,500 65,19,500 19.08.16 Rs. 65,19,500 8.21 The above table reflects that the total amount of taxes, duties and levies for the months of February 2016 till April 2016, i.e., Rs. 20,80,732, was paid by the respondent in two tranches of Rs. 18,31,441 (on 4 March 2015) and Rs. 2,49,291 (on 16 May 2016). It is not in dispute that this was against Debit Note raised in February for a sum of Re. 18,18,935 and in the month of April for Rs. 2,61,797. These include taxes for BOP in a sum of Rs. 1,73,375. Therefore, it can be inferred that the payment of Rs. 20,80,732 include BOP as well as manufactured products. It would be of interest to mention that along with the statement of defence, the respondent has filed Annexure-A which is a chart depicting payments that were made by the respondent. Though it is claimed that these payments are made only towards taxes on goods manufactured by the claimant itself, there is an entry dated 11.02.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 31.10.2016. Xxxx 8.26 One more argument of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent needs to be addressed. It was argued that in case se payments towards taxes on BOP were made, there was no reason for the claimant to claim entire amount of Rs. 3,92,92,680 and even the claimant itself has not excluded/adjusted these payments. However, we find that after making the payment initially, the respondent adjusted this amount while reimbursing taxes against manufactured items. It is for this reason that the claimant has not given adjustment and has Bought to recover the entire amount. 8.27 Re: Limitation: Keeping in mind the aforesaid findings, we advert to the issue of limitation raised by the respondent. In the first instance, the entire argument of the respondent proceeds on the basis that no payments were made to reimburse Excise Duty and CST on BOP, which is not found to be correct. Payment on that account was made on 11.02.2015 at least. 8.28 The claimant has produced on record letter dated 06.10.2010 wherein it had requested the respondent to release the outstanding payments on account of taxes. A figure of Rs. 5,62,73,400 as BOP sales was not examined outstandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the contract. The claims are raised within a period of three years therefrom and therefore, are not time barred. 8.32 Argument of the respondent that limitation should start after the expiry of 15 days from the date of invoices, in view of the above discussions, cannot be accepted. We thus hold that the entire claim made by the claimant is within the period of limitation. 8.33 Re: Judgment in DANS Energy Pvt Ltd: It is undisputed that the instant contract and the contract between the claimant and DANS have identical terms. The only difference was that in the present contract, there is absence of Schedule 7. However, we find that omission of Schedule 7 has not made any impact so far as the issue of payment/reimbursement of Excise Duty and CST on BOP is concerned. We have also returned the finding that the respondent had made reimbursement taxes on BOP supplies as well in the beginning. These were the only two reasons which were hammered by the respondent in distinguishing the instant case from the judgment in DANS. That apart, a reading of judgment of Ld. Single Judge as well as Division Bench, categorically makes out that Clause 14 of GCC in that contract was inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered dealer can collect tax in respect of sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Further relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. STanes Co Ltd vs. State of T.N. (2006) 9 SCC 305 , it is submitted that if there is a bar to collect tax, it cannot be recovered in form of purported recoupment or recovery. 16. Though, the legal principle contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputed, it would have no application to facts of the present case. The Arbitral Tribunal in paragraph 32, 40 and 21 of the Impugned Award has rejected the above argument on the ground that the same were raised without there being any supporting pleading in that regard. It is not argued before me that the said finding of the Arbitral Tribunal in incorrect. 8.36 To sum up, we pass an Award in the sum of Rs. 3,89,62,930 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 18.02.2019 when the arbitration was invoked, The claimant has filed the Bill of Cost showing the cost incurred towards arbitrators' fee, lawyers fee and administrative and secretarial expenses. However, we are not awarding the entire cost and are of the opinion that the Claimant is entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of tax by the Sub-Contractor on supply made to the Claimant. iv. Further, and most pertinently the Contract envisages that the Contract Price is based on the taxes and duties, which was or will be 'assessed on the Contractor.' On a combined reading of the aforesaid Clauses pertaining to following three key aspects of the Contract viz. i. Parties to the Contract; ii. 'Contract Price' payable by the Employer to the Contractor; and iii. Taxes applicable 011 'Contract Price'. It is apparent that the Contract envisaged the payment of 'applicable taxes' only with respect to the 'Contract Price' i.e. as applicable on the Contract Price payable by Employer to Contractor with respect to supply under the Contract. (h) It is submitted that taxes borne by the Claimant became part of its cost. In that event, allowing the Claimant to again recover such taxes once again under the umbrella of tax clause would mean double recovery of taxes paid. This is clearly a case of unjust enrichment, which is against the public policy and, therefore, should not be allowed. With respect to the aforesaid, it would be relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract. The other types of goods are manufactured goods which are directly manufactured by the respondent. The invoices in this aspect were raised as the consignee invoice to the respondent. The sub-contractor supplies the BOP along with invoice and after that the respondent sales in transit to the applicant takes places in accordance with Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956. The Excise Duty and CST were charged on such BOP goods supplied. The dispute between the parties arose, when the applicant did not pay an amount of Rs. 3,89,92,930/- in respect of the taxes, levies and duties paid by the respondent. The genesis of the dispute is to determine whether the petitioner was contractually liable to pay aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 3,89,92,930/- in respect of the taxes, levies and duties towards BOP to the respondent. 47. The learned Arbitral Tribunal, while interpreting the Clause 14 of the Contract, reached on the conclusion that the petitioner is obligated to pay the taxes and duties and there is no difference between the payment of taxes and duties in respect of manufactured goods and BOP. Taking view of the reason assigned in the interpretation as quoted in the foregoing paragraphs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reimbursement of taxes, duties and levies on BOP. The learned Arbitral Tribunal rightly reached on the conclusion and passed the impugned award, while considering the entire evidence on the record, the statement of claim, the statement of defence and written arguments filed and had given the detailed reasons. As it is a settled law while considering a challenge to an arbitral award where private parties are involved, the Court need not examine the validity of the findings or the reasoning behind the findings given by an Arbitrator. The extent to which a Court may exercise supervisory power in this respect is limited to examining whether the award and the conclusion drawn therein is supported by findings and not whether the findings themselves are erroneous or sound. The Court shall not conduct a roving enquiry into the facts and evidence of the matter and neither shall the Court sit in appeal against the award of the Arbitrator. 51. In UHL Power Company Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 4 SCC 116 , the Hon ble Supreme Court reiterated the narrow scope under Section 34 of the Act and held as under: 16. As it is, the jurisdiction conferred on courts under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econcile themselves to the wisdom of the decision of the arbitrator and the role of the court should be restricted to the bare minimum. Interference will be justified only in cases of commission of misconduct by the arbitrator which can find manifestation in different forms including exercise of legal perversity by the arbitrator. 52. In Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, 2022 1 SCC 131 , the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under: 28. The limited grounds available to Courts for annulment of arbitral awards are 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 therefore, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award . 53. Hence, the law which has been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
