Notes on Arbitration & ADR
Interference with arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration permissible in limited manner
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Crompton Greaves has held that interference with arbitral award is permissible only when the impugned perversity goes to the root of the matter, without there being a possible alternative interpretation that may otherwise save the award. The mandate of Section 34 is to respect the finality of an arbitral award and the said provision cannot be equated with an ordinary appellate jurisdiction.
A similar view was drawn in ONGC Ltd. vs. Western Geco International which noted that the illegality complained off ought to go to the root of the matter. Illegality of trivial nature could not be held to violate the public policy.
Unilateral appointment of Arbitrator no longer permissible
The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have held that unilateral appointment of Arbitrators isn't permissible post the 2015 amendments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement of Perkins Eastman has held that even if the agreement permits otherwise, yet such an appointment would be illegal.