1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The case arose from a contractual dispute between the appellant joint venture (BGM and M-RPL-JMCT JV) and the respondent Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) regarding the execution of a mining contract.
Contract and Dispute
The appellant was awarded a work order for overburden removal and coal extraction in one of ECL’s mines. Disputes arose over delayed payments, escalation claims, and deductions made by ECL, which the contractor alleged were arbitrary and contrary to the contractual terms.
The contract contained an arbitration clause, and upon invocation, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. The tribunal, after considering voluminous records and expert reports, partly allowed the contractor’s claims and awarded compensation for unpaid invoices and cost escalation but rejected other ancillary claims.
Post-Award Litigation
Aggrieved, ECL filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Calcutta High Court, contending that the award suffered from patent illegality and misinterpretation of contract clauses.
The High Court (Single Judge) dismissed the petition, holding that the award was a reasoned one and that reappraisal of evidence is beyond the scope of Section 34.
However, in appeal under Section 37, the Division Bench of the High Court partly modified the award by setting aside certain granted claims and reducing the awarded sum, effectively reassessing the merits of the case.
The contractor (JV) approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s modification of the award, asserting that the Division Bench had exceeded its jurisdiction under the limited scope of judicial review permitted under the Arbitration Act.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The Supreme Court addressed the following pivotal legal questions:
- Whether a court exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can modify or reassess an arbitral award on merits.
- Whether the High Court’s interference with factual findings and revaluation of evidence amounted to judicial overreach.
- What is the permissible scope of judicial scrutiny of arbitral awards under the “patent illegality” test post the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration Act.
3. Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (BGM AND M-RPL-JMCT JV)
- Argued that both the Arbitral Tribunal and the Single Judge had concurrently upheld the findings after detailed evaluation of facts and evidence.
- Contended that the Division Bench transgressed its jurisdiction under Section 37 by reassessing the evidence, thereby acting as an appellate authority over the arbitral award.
- Relied on the precedents:
- Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. DMRC, (2022) 1 SCC 131,
- Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49, and
- Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131.
- Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. DMRC, (2022) 1 SCC 131,
- Submitted that the High Court’s modification of the award contradicted the principle that courts can only set aside an award, not alter or rewrite it.
Respondent (Eastern Coalfields Limited)
- Justified the High Court’s interference, arguing that the arbitral award was perverse and patently illegal, as the tribunal had ignored material contractual provisions.
- Contended that errors apparent on the face of the record and wrong appreciation of escalation clauses warranted limited judicial correction.
- Asserted that the Division Bench’s interference was corrective, not substitutive, and within permissible bounds under ONGC v. Saw Pipes (2003) 5 SCC 705.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra delivered a detailed judgment clarifying the contours of judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act.
(a) Limited Scope of Judicial Review
The Court reiterated that judicial review of arbitral awards is neither an appeal nor a re-evaluation of facts. Citing Associate Builders and Ssangyong Engineering, the Court emphasized:
“The arbitral award represents the culmination of a consensual adjudicatory process. Courts are not appellate authorities to reassess findings or substitute their own conclusions.”
The Court held that both Sections 34 and 37 maintain the same restrictive standard — focusing only on:
- procedural irregularity,
- patent illegality on the face of the award, or
- violation of public policy of India.
Errors of fact, interpretation, or evidence appreciation do not justify judicial modification.
(b) Error of the High Court
The Division Bench, in the Supreme Court’s view, committed a jurisdictional error by:
- reinterpreting contractual clauses concerning escalation,
- re-quantifying compensation amounts, and
- substituting the tribunal’s factual findings with its own reasoning.
The Court held that such exercise “crossed from judicial review into appellate reassessment,” which is impermissible.
(c) Doctrine of Minimal Intervention
The Court reinforced the doctrine of minimal judicial interference, integral to the Arbitration Act’s legislative intent post the 2015 amendments, emphasizing that arbitral autonomy must be preserved unless the award shocks the conscience of the court.
(d) Restoring the Arbitral Award
The Supreme Court found the tribunal’s reasoning to be well-reasoned, supported by documentary evidence, and not suffering from perversity or illegality. Consequently, it restored the award as upheld by the Single Judge and set aside the Division Bench’s modification.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the arbitral award in favour of the contractor. It categorically held:
- Courts under Sections 34 and 37 cannot alter, modify, or reappraise arbitral awards.
- Judicial interference is confined to procedural or statutory violations, not factual disagreement.
- The High Court’s intervention amounted to jurisdictional excess and judicial rewriting of the award.
Key Principle:
“A court exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot sit as an appellate forum to modify or re-quantify an arbitral award. Judicial review is supervisory, not corrective or substitutive.”
FAQs:
1. Can a court modify an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
No. The court can only set aside an award on limited grounds like illegality or procedural violation. It cannot alter or rewrite the award’s findings or conclusions.
2. What is the difference between Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act?
Section 34 deals with setting aside arbitral awards, while Section 37 provides for appeals against such orders. Both maintain a narrow scope of judicial review.
3. What is meant by “patent illegality” in arbitration?
Patent illegality refers to an error apparent on the face of the award—such as a violation of law or fundamental policy—not mere factual or interpretational mistakes.
4. Can the High Court re-evaluate evidence in arbitration cases?
No. Courts cannot reassess or reweigh evidence considered by the arbitral tribunal. Doing so would convert judicial review into an appeal on merits, which is prohibited.
5. What precedent did the Supreme Court rely upon in this case?
The Court relied on Associate Builders v. DDA, Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI, and Delhi Airport Metro v. DMRC to reaffirm that arbitral awards enjoy judicial finality and minimal interference.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.