Court cannot interfere with an award in a Section 34 petition if the view taken by the arbitral tribunal is a plausible one. (Bombay High Court)

     Update by Saloni Jaiman

Niko Resources Limited v. Gujrat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd.  Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition 484 of 2017 | Citation: Currently not available|  Judge AK Menon J | Court: Bombay High Court| decided on 9/06/2020| Available at:   On 9 June 2020, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition for setting aside

Continue reading
Categories: Damages |  Perversity |  Quantification of an award |  Reappreciation of evidence |  Recourse against arbitral award |  Review on the merits of the dispute |  Section 34  

An award can be set aside if the tribunal’s interpretation of the contract is perverse or is not a possible view. (Supreme Court of India)

     Update by Samarth Madan

South East Asia Marine Engineering and Constructions Ltd. (SEAMEC Ltd.) v. Oil India Limited, Court: Supreme Court of India | Case Number: C.A. No. 673/2012 | Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 451| Judges: NV Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, Ajay Rastogi JJ | Date: 11 May 2020 | Available at:

Continue reading
Categories: Perversity |  Recourse against arbitral award |  Section 34 |  Setting aside arbitral award  

No patent illegality or perversity where rate not fixed in the agreement was fixed by the arbitrator on common business sense and proposals submitted by the respondent; Award patently illegal where the contract was interpreted based on a circular that was not in evidence (Delhi High Court)

     Updates by Simran Patel

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Aksh Optifibre Limited, OMP (Comm.) 131 of 2017 Mohan Steels Limited v. Steel Authority of India (SAIL), OMP 488 of 2015 High Court of Delhi; single-judge bench, Jyoti Singh J, decided on 04 March 2020   On 04 March 2020, Jyoti Singh J of the

Continue reading
Categories: Application for setting aside award |  Perverse award |  Recourse against arbitral award |  Section 34 (2A) |  Section 36  

Award set aside by Delhi High Court in an appeal, overturning the finding of the arbitral tribunal and a single judge who had dismissed the set-aside application, on the ground that the reasoning of the tribunal was perverse and hence in conflict with the public policy of India (Delhi High Court)

     Updates by Avantika Verma

MMTC Limited v. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal, FAO (OS) 532/2015 Delhi High Court; 2-judge bench, G.S. Sistani and Anup Jairam Bhambhani JJ.; decided on 02 March 2020 A bench of two judges of the Delhi High Court set aside, in this case, a domestic award in an appeal under Section

Continue reading
Categories: Application for setting aside award |  Fundamental policy of Indian law |  Perverse award |  Public Policy of India |  Recourse against arbitral award |  Section 34  

Standard of setting aside; facets of a reasoned award; power of remission et. al. (Supreme Court)

     Updates by Avantika Verma

Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1656 Supreme Court of India, 3- Judge Bench, N.V. Ramana, Ajay Rastogi, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., Decided on 18 December 2019 The Supreme Court has re-emphasised that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) the award must

Continue reading
Categories: Characteristics of a reasoned order |  Characteristics of reasoned order |  Duty to give reasons |  Form and contents of award |  Grounds for setting aside arbitral award |  Implied reasoning |  Perverse award |  Reasoned or speaking award |  Recourse against arbitral award |  Section 34 |  Setting aside arbitral award |  Standard for setting aside arbitral award