Part I – Domestic
Arbitration
ARBITRAL AWARD, ORDER AND ITS ENFORCEMENT
Section 31 – Form and Contents of Arbitral Award
Award must be:
In writing
Signed by arbitrators
Reasoned (unless waived or settlement)
Dated and specify place
Delivered to parties
Section 31A – Regime for Costs
Tribunal can decide:
Who pays costs
Amount
Manner of payment
Section 32 – Termination of Proceedings
Proceedings terminate when:
Final award is made
Claim withdrawn
Parties agree to terminate
Tribunal finds continuation unnecessary/impossible
Section 33 – Correction, Interpretation, Additional Award
Within 30 days, parties can request:
Correction of clerical errors
Interpretation
Additional award for omitted claims
Section 34 – Application for Setting Aside Award
Award can be challenged only on limited grounds such as:
Incapacity of party
Invalid arbitration agreement
Lack of proper notice
Award beyond scope
Conflict with public policy
Section 35 – Finality of Arbitral Award
Award is final and binding on parties
Explanation
Reflects principle of party autonomy
Limits prolonged litigation
Section 36 – Enforcement of Award
Award enforced as a decree of court
After expiry of Section 34 limitation
Key Features
(a) No Automatic Stay
Filing Section 34 → does NOT stay enforcement
(b) Stay Requires Application
Court may:
Grant stay
Impose conditions (e.g., deposit)
Section 37 – Appealable Orders
Appeals allowed only in limited cases:
Refusal to refer to arbitration
Grant/refusal of interim measures
Setting aside/refusal to set aside award
Section 9 & Section 17 (Orders / Interim Measures)
Although not in Chapter VI–VIII, they are crucial:
Section 9 – Interim Measures by Court
Before, during, or after arbitration
Examples:
Injunction
Preservation of property
Section 17 – Interim Measures by Tribunal
Tribunal can grant similar relief
Enforceable as court order
Foreign Awards (Part II)
Section 49
Where the Court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable under this
Chapter, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of that Court
Section 58
Where the Court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable under this
Chapter, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of the Court.
Illustration
Dispute
Skyline Developers initiated arbitration against Apex Steel Industries after receiving substandard steel that
caused structural defects and delays in a commercial construction project.
Interim Protection
During the proceedings, Skyline discovered that Apex was transferring assets to avoid potential liability. The
tribunal ordered Apex to secure funds in an escrow account and restrained further diversion of assets.
Final Decision & Costs
The tribunal held Apex responsible for supplying defective materials and awarded compensation for repair
costs and delay losses. Apex was also directed to bear the full arbitration costs, including legal and expert
fees.
Correction
After the award, a minor error in interest calculation was identified. The tribunal corrected it upon request and
revised the final payable amount.
Challenge Before Court
Apex challenged the award, claiming excess jurisdiction. The court rejected the challenge and upheld the
tribunal’s decision.
Enforcement
Skyline enforced the award like a civil court decree. Apex was required to pay or furnish security if seeking a
stay on enforcement.
Case Law
Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019) – Concise Formal Explanation
The Supreme Court in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI) dealt with the scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly after the 2015 Amendment.
Key Issues
Whether the arbitral award could be set aside on the ground of “public policy of India”.
Extent of “patent illegality” as a ground for challenge under Section 34.
Whether courts can reassess the merits of the arbitral award.
Findings of the Supreme Court
The Court held that the expression “public policy of India” has been narrowly interpreted after
the 2015 Amendment.
“Patent illegality” is a valid ground only if it goes to the root of the matter and is not a mere
erroneous application of law.
Courts cannot undertake a re-appreciation of evidence or sit in appeal over arbitral findings.
Interference is permissible only where the award is:
Contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law, or
Vitiated by patent illegality affecting the core decision.
Contract and Evidence Interpretation
Interpretation of contractual terms lies primarily with the arbitral
tribunal.
Even if another interpretation is possible, the court must not
substitute its own view if the arbitrator’s interpretation is reasonable.
Conclusion
The judgment significantly reinforces the principle that Section 34
proceedings are not appellate in nature, and judicial intervention in
arbitral awards must remain minimal, narrow, and strictly within
statutory limits, thereby preserving the finality of arbitration.