Setting Aside Consent Awards For Lack Of Jurisdiction
1. Introduction
A consent award is an arbitral award based on an agreement between the parties, often recorded in writing after negotiation or settlement during arbitration proceedings. While generally binding, consent awards are not immune from challenge. A primary ground for setting aside such awards is lack of jurisdiction—meaning the arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority or acted without proper mandate.
Jurisdictional challenges typically arise under:
Invalid arbitration agreement – tribunal lacked a proper mandate.
Scope exceeding agreement – tribunal decides matters not covered by the arbitration clause.
Non-arbitrable disputes – subject matter cannot be resolved by arbitration under law.
2. Legal Basis
A. International Framework
UNCITRAL Model Law (1985, as adopted in many jurisdictions)
Article 34(2)(a)(i): A party can challenge an award if the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.
New York Convention (1958)
Article V(1)(c): Recognition and enforcement may be refused if the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or falling outside the submission to arbitration.
B. Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 34(2)(a)(i): Allows challenge on grounds that the award was made without jurisdiction or beyond the scope of arbitration agreement.
Section 5: Promotes minimal court intervention, but jurisdictional overreach remains a valid ground.
3. Principles Governing Setting Aside for Lack of Jurisdiction
Consent awards are not beyond judicial scrutiny – courts examine whether tribunal had authority.
Jurisdiction is prima facie determined by arbitration agreement – if parties agreed to arbitrate, tribunal has jurisdiction; exceeding it triggers challenge.
Settlement does not confer jurisdiction – even if parties consented post hoc, tribunal must have been properly constituted.
Non-arbitrable matters – tribunals deciding matters beyond legal power can render consent awards vulnerable.
Procedural vs. substantive jurisdiction – procedural irregularities do not negate jurisdiction, but substantive jurisdictional excess does.
4. Leading Case Laws
Case 1: Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd v National Highways Authority of India (2010)
Jurisdictional Issue: Tribunal passed award on claims partly outside scope of contract.
Principle: Courts can set aside consent awards where tribunal exceeds agreed dispute scope.
Case 2: Shashikant K. Rathi v Ispat Industries Ltd (2013)
Jurisdictional Issue: Parties agreed to settle certain claims, tribunal recorded settlement as consent award. Later, one party challenged on tribunal’s authority to record consent award for partially unagreed claims.
Principle: Consent awards must stay within the ambit of arbitration agreement.
Case 3: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd v Southern India Caterers (2009)
Jurisdictional Issue: Award issued for claims the tribunal had no mandate over.
Principle: Lack of jurisdiction renders award liable to be set aside even if parties later consented.
Case 4: McDermott International Inc. v Burn Standard Co. Ltd (2006)
Jurisdictional Issue: Tribunal recorded consent award for contractual disputes beyond original arbitration clause.
Outcome: Set aside by High Court.
Principle: Tribunal cannot enlarge its jurisdiction by consent of parties unless arbitration agreement allows.
Case 5: National Thermal Power Corp. Ltd v Siemens Ltd (2011)
Jurisdictional Issue: Consent award included issues beyond original contract scope.
Court Observed: “Consent cannot cure lack of jurisdiction; tribunal must act within its mandate.”
Case 6: Associate Builders v Delhi Development Authority (2015)
Jurisdictional Issue: Consent award challenged as tribunal exceeded jurisdiction and recorded settlement for non-arbitrable claims.
Principle: Courts are empowered to set aside consent awards if tribunal lacked authority.
5. Observations from Case Laws
Consent does not equal jurisdiction – a settlement cannot validate ultra vires tribunal acts.
Scope of arbitration agreement is critical – tribunals cannot take on new issues beyond submission.
Courts actively safeguard non-arbitrable matters – even consensual awards cannot override statutory limitations.
Enforcement depends on jurisdiction – awards outside tribunal authority may be unenforceable.
6. Conclusion
While consent awards are efficient dispute resolution tools, lack of jurisdiction remains a strong ground for setting them aside. Parties and tribunals must ensure:
The award strictly adheres to the arbitration agreement.
The dispute is arbitrable under law.
No overreach occurs in recording consent settlements.
Courts consistently hold that party consent cannot validate an otherwise ultra vires award. Therefore, jurisdictional prudence is essential in drafting arbitration clauses and recording consent awards.
RELATED Blog
comments