Obligations Of Tribunal To Ensure Equal Treatment Of Parties
1. Meaning and Scope of Equal Treatment
Equal treatment does not mean identical treatment, but rather:
Fair and impartial conduct
Equal opportunity to:
Present evidence
Make submissions
Respond to the opponent’s case
It is closely tied to:
Natural justice (audi alteram partem)
Absence of bias
Procedural parity
2. Core Obligations of the Tribunal
(A) Equal Opportunity to Present Case
Each party must have:
Adequate notice
Time to prepare
Right to produce evidence
(B) Impartial and Neutral Conduct
Tribunal must avoid:
Favoring one party
Prejudging issues
(C) Equal Hearing Rights
Both parties must be:
Heard on all material issues
Allowed to rebut evidence
(D) Transparency in Procedure
No ex parte communications or undisclosed material
(E) Consistency in Procedural Decisions
Similar procedural requests must be treated similarly unless justified
3. Judicial Interpretation (Case Laws)
1. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI
Court emphasized:
Equal treatment includes full opportunity to present case.
Any procedural inequality leading to prejudice can invalidate the award.
Linked Section 18 with Section 34 (setting aside).
2. Associate Builders v. DDA
Held:
Violation of natural justice (including unequal treatment) falls under public policy.
Tribunal must act fairly, reasonably, and without bias.
3. ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd.
Introduced requirement of “judicial approach”.
Tribunal must:
Treat parties fairly
Avoid arbitrary conduct
Unequal treatment violates fundamental policy of Indian law.
4. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
Court clarified:
Equal treatment includes reasoned consideration of both parties’ arguments.
Ignoring one party’s submissions may amount to unfairness.
5. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. Tuff Drilling Pvt. Ltd.
While dealing with substitution of arbitrator:
Emphasized that procedural decisions must not prejudice either party.
Equal treatment continues even after tribunal changes.
6. State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions
Held:
Denial of opportunity to present evidence = clear violation of natural justice.
Award liable to be set aside.
7. Union of India v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
Court stressed:
Tribunal must ensure procedural fairness throughout.
Any bias or unequal handling undermines validity of award.
4. Situations Constituting Violation
(A) Denial of Hearing
Refusing adjournment unfairly to one party
Not allowing cross-examination
(B) Unequal Time or Opportunity
One party allowed extensive submissions, other restricted
(C) Ignoring Evidence
Considering only one party’s documents
(D) Ex Parte Decisions Without Justification
Proceeding without proper notice
(E) Procedural Bias
Differential treatment in procedural rulings
5. Situations NOT Amounting to Violation
✔ Reasonable Procedural Control
Tribunal can:
Limit time
Refuse irrelevant evidence
✔ Party’s Own Default
If a party fails to appear or comply, tribunal may proceed
✔ Balanced Discretion
Different treatment justified by circumstances (e.g., delay tactics)
6. Test for Determining Violation
Courts generally apply:
(1) Was there unequal treatment?
(2) Did it affect the party’s ability to present its case?
(3) Did it cause real prejudice?
Only when all three are satisfied, the award may be set aside.
7. Relationship with Section 34
Violation of equal treatment can lead to setting aside under:
Section 34(2)(a)(iii) → inability to present case
Section 34(2)(b)(ii) → conflict with public policy
8. Practical Example
Example 1 (Violation)
Tribunal allows claimant to file additional evidence
Rejects respondent’s similar request without reason
→ Unequal treatment
Example 2 (No Violation)
Tribunal limits both parties to equal time for arguments
→ Valid procedural control
9. Conclusion
The tribunal’s duty to ensure equal treatment is fundamental and non-derogable:
Guarantees fairness and legitimacy of arbitration
Prevents bias and arbitrariness
Ensures enforceability of awards
However, courts maintain a balanced approach:
Not every procedural irregularity leads to invalidation
Only serious and prejudicial inequality attracts judicial interference
RELATED Blog
comments