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.
These judgements tend to cater greater sanctity and certainty to the process of arbitration, which in modern day a necessary element of commercial law, corporate law and corporate litigation.
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.
This judgement fights against possible bias that used to creep in Arbitration mechanism prior to the 2015 amendment. The Arbitration awards will now enjoy greater sanctity and certainty, which in modern day a necessary element of commercial law, corporate law and corporate litigation.
The user agrees that he/ she is accessing the website of DB law Offices for informational purposes only, on his/ her own volition, and has not been directed to this website unintentionally, accidentally or otherwise. Nor has the user landed up in this website as a result of any solicitation, advertisement or other promotional activity. The contents of this website is for knowledge and information only, and does not constitute any legal advice or guarantee or warranty of any sort thereof.