Delhi High Court upholds limited judicial interference in arbitral awards, dismisses Section 34 plea challenging award of Rs 77.96 crore in telecom dispute

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma in the case Quadrant Televentures Limited Versus ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd And Anr observed that it is no longer res integra that while dealing with the objections as stated under Section 34, a court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award.

The court in the case stated that under Section 35(2)(a), an arbitral award can be set aside only if the petitioner establishes that the parties were under some incapacity or the arbitration agreement was not valid or the petitioner was not given the proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or the arbitral proceeding or was unable to present his case or if the dispute is not contemplated within the terms of the submissions to arbitration.

The court observed that an arbitral award can also be set aside if it conflicts with the public policy of India.

The court also stated that section 34(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which provides that an award in domestic arbitration can also be set aside if the court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the record.

The court in the case reiterated that the mandate under Section 34 of A&C Act is to respect the finality of the arbitral award and the party autonomy to get their dispute adjudicated by an alternative forum.