23 September 2021 | KC Cottrell India Private Limited v. Mechno Services | AP/240/2021 | Moushumi Bhattacharya J| Calcutta | 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2548
In a set aside application the arbitral award was remitted to the tribunal following the law laid down in Kinnari Mullick v. Ghanshyam Das Damani (2018) 11 SCC 328.
All ingredients of Section 34 (4) ACA were found present. First, the application to remit was made during the pendency of an application for setting aside of the award. Second, the application was in writing. Third and most important, the application was in in the nature of an opportunity to the tribunal to resume the proceedings but only to eliminate the grounds taken in the application for setting aside of the award under Section 34 ACA.
In this case, the grievance was non-service of notice of the proceedings and the absence of an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in such proceedings. This ground, the court said, could be found in Section 34(2) (iii) ACA [sic Section 32 (a) (2) (iii)].
The contention that sending the matter back to the tribunal would result in hearing of the matter de novo was considered an insufficient ground to reject the application.
Read the decision here.