CLOSE
20 September 2021 | Anand Citi Centre Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited | OSA No. 143 of 2021| Sanjib Banerjee CJ and PD Audikesavalu J | Madras High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 5222
In an appeal against the set-aside court upholding the award, the appellant complained that key documents were not referred to in the arbitral award and the set-aside court did not consider such aspect to be a serious ground of challenge.
The Madras High Court ruled that there is no rule that every document that is carried to an arbitral reference must be expressly referred to in the award. Further, it is only when the award appears to be completely flawed in the sense that it shocks the conscience of the court or when the methodology adopted for assessment is found to be opposed to public policy and egregiously unjust or unfair that an arbitration court would be excited to delve any deeper into the award or annul the same.
It found that the arbitrator’s approach was right and set-aside court adhered to the command of Section 34 ACA.
Read the decision here.
Categories: Application for Setting Aside Arbitral Award | Duty to Give Reasons | Form and Contents of Arbitral Award | Grounds for Setting Aside Arbitral Award | Implied Reasoning | Reasoned Award | Reasoned or Speaking Award | Section 34 ACA | Setting Aside Arbitral Award | Standard for Setting Aside Arbitral Award