Delhi High Court: Delay In Publication Of Arbitral Award Does Not Invalidate It Unless Rights Of The Parties Are Materially Affected
The Delhi High Court upheld an Order dismissing objections to an arbitral award.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that the delay in publication of the arbitral award does not invalidate the award unless it is shown that the award has materially affected the rights of the parties
The Court upheld an Order dismissing objections to an arbitral award, filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), which was dismissed by the Arbitrator. The Court noted that there was nothing to indicate that the arbitral award was patently illegal or violated any matters of public policy.
A Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held, “There is no issue of any proceeding being unfair or violative of the principles of natural justice in the course of arbitration proceedings. Although, there was a delay in passing the impugned award, but there was no prejudice suffered by the appellant in any manner. The delay in publication of award does not invalidate the award unless it is shown that the award has materially affected the rights of the parties.”
The Appellant appeared in-person, while Advocate Arunima Dwivedi represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The contract between the parties was initially set to be completed by a certain date, but was extended. Disputes arose between the parties concerning payments and project delays, leading to arbitration proceedings.
A series of arbitrators were appointed during the arbitration proceedings, with the final award rendered in 2005. The Appellant challenged the award, arguing entitlement to additional payments and disputing deductions made by the Union of India. The Additional District Judge (ADJ) dismissed these objections, leading to the current Appeal in the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The High Court reiterated that “the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the Act is neither in the nature of an appellate remedy nor is in the nature of a revisional remedy. It is also well settled that an award cannot be challenged on merits except on the limited grounds that have been spelled out vide sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 34 of the Act, by way of filing an appropriate application.”
The Bench pointed out that the dictum that there is no power vested in a Court to modify, revise or vary the terms of an award under Section 34 of the Act was further reiterated by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (2023). It was held that “Courts under Section 34 are not granted the corrective lens and cannot reappreciate the decision on merits unless the conclusions drawn are patently perverse.”
Consequently, the Court held, “At last, there is nothing to indicate that the arbitral award is such which is patently illegal or violates any matters of public policy. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the award does not suffer from any legal infirmities. The appeal under Section 37 of the Act is hereby dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: M/S Brij Lal & Sons. v. Union Of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2075)
Appearance:
Respondents: Advocates Arunima Dwivedi and Pinky Pawar
