Chapter VII, Section 34, of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides the power to the parties of arbitration to challenge the final arbitration award. It allows parties to seek judicial intervention to set aside the arbitral award. It lays down specific grounds on the basis of which the final award can be set aside. The object of Section 34 is to offer a mechanism for parties dissatisfied with an arbitral award to challenge it in court.
Grounds To Set Aside Arbitral Award Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act contains several important provisions that define the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award. Here is a detailed breakdown of the section:
1. Grounds for Setting Aside an Award
According to Section 34(2), an award may be set aside if:
Incapacity: A party to the arbitration was under incapacity, making the award unenforceable.
Invalid Arbitration Agreement: The arbitration agreement was invalid according to the applicable law.
Lack of Proper Notice: The party challenging the award was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the proceedings and was unable to present their case.
Matters Beyond the Scope of Arbitration: The award addresses issues that fall outside the agreed scope of arbitration or includes decisions on issues beyond those submitted.
Provision on Severability: If only part of the award addresses matters beyond the scope, Section 34(2)(a)(iv) allows the court to set aside only that part rather than the entire award.
Improper Composition or Procedure: If the composition of the tribunal or the procedure followed was not in accordance with the agreement between parties or the applicable law.
2. Public Policy Grounds
Section 34(2)(b) provides that an award can also be set aside if it is contrary to the public policy of India. According to the Supreme Court’s interpretation, an award is in conflict with public policy if:
It was induced by fraud or corruption.
It violates the fundamental policy of Indian law.
It is in conflict with basic notions of morality or justice.
Recent amendments have clarified that “public policy” does not mean a review of the award’s merits, which ensures that courts do not overstep into re-evaluating the substantive issues of the arbitration.
3. Patent Illegality (Domestic Arbitration Only)
Section 34(2A) provides an additional ground for domestic arbitration, where the award can be challenged for patent illegality appearing on its face. However, this ground does not apply to international commercial arbitration. The provision ensures that domestic awards adhere to the legal framework without encouraging unnecessary challenges, as errors in legal interpretation alone are insufficient for setting aside an award.
Are you interested in pursuing a career in Law? The Legal School in collaboration with IndusLaw has created unique programs for a Certification in Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity and Venture Capital Laws & Certification in Mergers & Acquisitions for fresh law graduates as well as professionals looking to advance in their careers! Enquire now for details!
Timelines & Procedure Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act mandates a strict timeline for filing applications to set aside an award:
Three-Month Limit: A party must apply to set aside the award within three months from the date they received it.
Extension for Sufficient Cause: The court may extend this period by an additional thirty days if it finds sufficient cause for the delay. However, further extensions beyond thirty days are not allowed.
Significance of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act carries significant implications for parties involved in arbitration. Following are the salient features of the section:
Limited Grounds for Challenge: it prohibits any recourse other than the grounds mentioned in Section 34 to set aside the final award.
Public Policy Safeguard: The inclusion of public policy grounds ensures that awards do not contravene India’s fundamental legal values. However, this ground is also narrowly construed to avoid excessive judicial interference.
Strict Adherence to Timelines: This section provides strict timelines for challenging an award. This ensures the finality of the arbitral award.
Patent Illegality for Domestic Arbitration: The addition of patent illegality as a ground specifically for domestic arbitration reflects the legislature's intention to uphold local standards of legality without compromising the efficiency of arbitration.
Recent Judicial Interpretations on Section 34 of Arbitration Act 1996
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has evolved through legislative amendments and judicial interpretations, particularly in defining grounds like “public policy” and “patent illegality.” Notable recent cases have further clarified its application
National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem (2021)
The Supreme Court ruled that courts do not have the power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Act. The court also stated that the Supreme Court of India is the only entity that can modify an arbitral award to ensure complete justice to the parties
Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019)
The Supreme Court clarified that “public policy” does not allow for a review of the award’s merits, ensuring that courts do not interfere with the substantive findings of the tribunal.
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2015)
The court held that an arbitral award could be set aside if it contravenes basic notions of justice or morality, refining the scope of public policy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd. (2014)
The Supreme Court ruled that an award may be set aside under public policy if it violates the fundamental policy of Indian law. This landmark judgment helped to shape the understanding of public policy in the context of arbitration.
Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (2010)
This case highlighted that patent illegality is applicable only to domestic awards, ensuring that international awards are subject to less stringent standards.
Conclusion
Section 34 provides a focused remedy by allowing only specific grounds for challenging the award, thus ensuring that arbitration remains a swift and final mode of dispute resolution. This section upholds both the efficiency and fairness of arbitration, ensuring that awards remain binding unless they contravene legal standards or basic principles of justice. Judicial interpretations and recent amendments have further clarified its application, limiting court interference and supporting the autonomy of the arbitration process.
FAQs on Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996
What is Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Section 34 provides a mechanism for parties to challenge an arbitral award in court. It specifies limited grounds, such as procedural irregularities, incapacity, invalid agreements, public policy, and patent illegality, under which an award can be set aside, ensuring that arbitration awards remain binding unless they violate fundamental legal principles.
On what grounds can an arbitral award be set aside under Section 34?
An award can be set aside on grounds like incapacity, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, decisions beyond the scope of arbitration, procedural irregularities, and if the award conflicts with the public policy of India or contains patent illegality (for domestic arbitration).
What is the time limit for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
The application to set aside an arbitral award must be filed within three months from the date the party received the award. The court may extend this period by an additional thirty days if it finds sufficient cause but no further.
What does “public policy” mean in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
Public policy grounds include instances where the award is induced by fraud or corruption, violates the fundamental policy of Indian law, or conflicts with basic notions of justice or morality. Courts, however, do not review the award’s merits under this ground.
Can an international arbitration award be set aside under Section 34?
