Set Aside Arbitration Awards.
Set Aside Arbitration Awards
Setting aside an arbitration award means that a court invalidates or nullifies the award on specific legal grounds. This power is limited and supervisory, not appellate—courts do not re-examine the merits unless serious legal defects exist.
In India, this is governed primarily by Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
1. Meaning of Setting Aside an Arbitral Award
- It is a judicial remedy to challenge an arbitral award
- The court may:
- Set aside (cancel) the award
- Partially set aside the award
- Courts cannot modify or rewrite the award (except limited interpretation contexts)
2. Grounds for Setting Aside (Section 34)
(A) Procedural Grounds
A party must prove:
(i) Incapacity of parties
- Agreement invalid due to incompetence
(ii) Invalid Arbitration Agreement
- Not valid under applicable law
(iii) Lack of Proper Notice
- Party was not given fair opportunity
(iv) Excess of Jurisdiction
- Arbitrator decided beyond scope
(v) Improper Composition of Tribunal
- Tribunal not constituted as per agreement
(B) Substantive Grounds
(i) Conflict with Public Policy
Includes:
- Fraud or corruption
- Violation of fundamental policy of Indian law
- Conflict with justice or morality
(ii) Patent Illegality (for domestic awards)
- Clear error apparent on face of award
3. Key Case Laws
(1) ONGC v Saw Pipes Ltd
Principle: Expanded “public policy” to include patent illegality.
Held: Courts can set aside awards if:
- Contrary to law
- Against terms of contract
Impact: Broadened judicial intervention.
(2) ONGC v Western Geco International Ltd
Principle: Introduced “fundamental policy of Indian law.”
Includes:
- Judicial approach
- Natural justice
- Reasonableness
(3) Associate Builders v DDA
Principle: Clarified scope of interference.
Held: Courts may interfere only if:
- Award is perverse
- Arbitrator ignores vital evidence
Also categorized public policy into clear heads.
(4) Ssangyong Engineering v NHAI
Principle: Narrowed judicial intervention post-amendment.
Held:
- Patent illegality must be obvious
- Courts cannot reappreciate evidence
(5) McDermott International v Burn Standard Co Ltd
Principle: Courts cannot correct errors—only set aside.
Held: Arbitration is final; court intervention is minimal.
(6) Renusagar Power Co Ltd v General Electric Co
Principle: Narrow interpretation of public policy (for foreign awards).
Includes:
- Fundamental policy
- Justice and morality
(7) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd v DMRC
Principle: Reinforced limited scope of interference.
Held: Courts must not act as appellate authority.
4. Important Concepts
(A) Public Policy Doctrine
- Most frequently used ground
- Courts have gradually narrowed its scope
(B) Patent Illegality
- Applies only to domestic awards
- Must be:
- Apparent
- Not requiring detailed re-evaluation
(C) Natural Justice Violation
- No hearing
- Bias
- Lack of fairness
5. Limitations on Court Power
- No re-evaluation of evidence
- No correction of minor errors
- Cannot substitute arbitrator’s decision
6. Time Limit for Challenge
- Application must be filed within:
- 3 months from receipt of award
- Extendable by 30 days (not beyond)
7. Practical Implications
For Parties:
- Must ensure proper arbitration procedure
- Draft clear arbitration clauses
For Arbitrators:
- Must:
- Follow due process
- Stay within jurisdiction
- Provide reasoned awards
8. Conclusion
Setting aside arbitral awards is an exceptional remedy, not a routine appeal. Courts aim to:
- Preserve finality of arbitration
- Intervene only in cases of:
- Serious illegality
- Procedural unfairness
Judicial trend in India shows a shift from broad intervention (Saw Pipes) to minimal interference (Ssangyong, DMRC case), aligning with global arbitration standards.
RELATED Blog
comments