Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

In Part I[1] and II[2] of this post, we have analysed the contours of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), and the questions and ambiguities that may arise in its applicability. The purpose of this blog is to further analyse the limited scope of Section 34(4) of the Act, in light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Limited[3] case, wherein it is observed that failure on the part of the arbitral tribunal in providing findings on contentious issues in the award is not a “curable defect” under Section 34(4) of the Act, and is an acceptable ground for setting the award aside (instead).Continue Reading Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: A Fly in The Ointment? (Part III)

LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING A SECTION 34 PETITION BEGINS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE SIGNED COPY OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD

Introduction:

Recently, a division bench of the Supreme Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. V. M/s Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.[1] has inter alia (i) clarified when the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) commences; (ii) discussed the legal requirement and significance of an award being signed; and (iii) highlighted the relevance of dissenting opinions in arbitration proceedings. The Court has also made observations on what happens to the underlying disputes between the parties after an award is set aside.
Continue Reading Limitation period for filing a Section 34 Petition begins from the Date of Receipt of the Signed Copy of the Arbitral Award

Section 34 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – A fly in the ointment Part II

In Part I of this post, we examined the contours of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Arbitration Act”), pre-conditions for its invocation and the scope of the powers conferred upon the court thereunder. In this post, we analyse some of the questions and ambiguities that may arise in the applicability of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act.

Can Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act be invoked to eliminate any ground under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act?

Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act provides two sets of grounds on which an award may be set aside. Section 34(2)(a) sets out grounds of challenge such as incapacity of a party, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice of appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or inability of a party to present his case, an award which deals with disputes not submitted to arbitration, improper composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure contrary to the agreement between the parties, etc. These grounds must be established by the party challenging the award, on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal.
Continue Reading Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A Fly in the Ointment? (Part II)

Section 34 - 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A fly in the ointment - Part I

Introduction

The recourse available to a party seeking to challenge an arbitral award is provided for in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Arbitration Act”). Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act has undergone a few statutory amendments, and has been the subject of innumerable judgments, which highlight the contours within which a challenge to an arbitral award is available. Given that party autonomy and finality of awards are hallmarks of the arbitral process, both the Parliament as well as the judiciary have strived for minimal judicial interference with arbitral awards and arbitration proceedings. This has been done by tightening and limiting the scope and interpretation of the grounds available under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act.
Continue Reading Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A Fly in the Ointment? (Part I)