Background
The Supreme Court has, in Patel Engineering Limited v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited,[1] reaffirmed the scope of patent illegality, post the 2015 amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), as a ground to challenge a domestic award under Section 34 of the Act.
Disputes between Patel Engineering Limited (“Patel Engineering”) and North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (“NEEPCL”), arising out of works contracts for three separate packages, culminated in three arbitral awards dated March 29, 2016. One of the issues in each of the three arbitral proceedings was which clause of the conditions of contract would apply to decide the rate at which Patel Engineering was entitled to extra payment for additional quantities of lead. The arbitrator’s interpretation was in favour of Patel Engineering in all three awards. NEEPCL challenged the awards before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, who upheld the awards.
In an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the Meghalaya High Court set aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong. Patel Engineering filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed without reasons. Patel Engineering then filed review petitions before the Meghalaya High Court on the ground that the judgement of the High Court suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record insofar as it did not take into consideration the amendments made to the Act in 2015 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“Amendment Act”). The High Court dismissed the review petitions, which led to the present challenge before the Supreme Court.
Patel Engineering contended that the High Court erred in applying the provisions of the Act as applicable prior to its amendment in 2015 and that the judgement of the High Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record since the High Court relied upon Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.[2]and Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd.[3], which ceased to be good law after the amendment of the Act in 2015.
Decision
The Supreme Court relied on its decision in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited[4] and found that the Act as amended in 2015 would apply to the present case, as the awards were passed, and the applications challenging the awards were filed, after the commencement of the Amendment Act.
The sub-heads of patent illegality, as laid down in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority[5] and Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India,[6] were reaffirmed. The Court ultimately dismissed the petitions filed by Patel Engineering while holding as follows:
Comment
The central issue in the present proceeding was whether the High Court rightly dismissed the review petition filed by Patel Engineering. The review was filed mainly on the ground that the High Court erroneously applied the provisions as applicable prior to the Amendment Act, by inter alia relying upon the decisions in Saw Pipes (supra) and Western Geco (supra). The Supreme Court refused to take a narrow view and essentially rejected the contention that the High Court’s judgement was erroneous merely because it relied on Saw Pipes (supra) and Western Geco (supra), given that the test applied by the High Court was in line with Associate Builders (supra) and Ssangyong (supra). In answering this issue, the Supreme Court had occasion to further delineate the contours of “patent illegality” under Section 34 of the Act.
The Court traced the genesis of the ground of patent illegality to Saw Pipes (supra), where the Court was dealing with a domestic award and expanded the interpretation of “public policy of India” in Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Part I of the Act to include patent illegality. In its judgment in Associate Builders (supra), the Supreme Court, on the basis of the unamended Section 34 of the Act and the existing judicial dicta on the subject, formulated three exhaustive sub-heads of patent illegality, as a ground for challenge to an arbitral award, namely –
The Act was amended in 2015 by the Amendment Act. The amended provisions came into force from October 23, 2015, and the ground of “patent illegality” for setting aside a domestic award was given statutory force in Section 34(2A) of Act. Importantly, the said section also provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence. This was followed by the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ssangyong (supra), wherein the Court excluded point (i) above and reiterated points (ii) and (iii) from Associate Builders (supra) as forming part of the new statutory character of patent illegality (a ground now not available to challenge an award arising out of an international commercial arbitration). While reiterating point (iii), the Court held that in short, under this sub-head, the arbitrator’s view should not even be a possible view to take. The Court also noted that if the arbitrator wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits an error of jurisdiction.
In the present case, the Court has, after affirming the Ssangyong (supra) view of patent illegality, further supplemented/explained point (iii) above, by holding that if the decision of the arbitrator is found to be perverse, or, so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same; or, the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take; or, the view of the arbitrator is not even a possible view; then the award is required to be set aside as being patently illegal. This sub-head of patent illegality, available for setting aside a domestic award [which is to be read together with point (iii) above], would be in addition to the other sub-head, highlighted above in point (ii).
[1] Order dated 22nd May 2020 in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3584-85 of 2020
[2] (2003) 5 SCC 705
[3] (2014) 9 SCC 263
[4] (2018) 6 SCC 287. For an analysis of this judgement, please see http://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2018/05/bcci-v-kochi-cricket-supreme-courts-much-needed-third-umpire-decision/
[5] (2015) 3 SCC 49
[6] (2019) 15 SCC 131