Intention Of Legislature Is To Limit The Interference By The Courts In The Process Of Arbitration: Delhi HC

Background Facts:

A Claim was filed for Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell, which the Respondent had contested on various grounds including that the Agreement was a Lease Deed, and being determinable under Section 14 (1)(c) of Specific Relief Act, it could not be specifically performed after being terminated. The Learned Tribunal dismissed the sole Claim on the ground that the Agreement was determinable in nature and that the Claimant was entitled to compensation towards the cost incurred in erecting the building.

The Court also observed that unfettered intervention in the functioning of Arbitral Tribunal would defeat the spirit and purpose of the Arbitration Act and that there is deemed privilege of limited intervention from the Courts which the Arbitrators possess.

While dismissing the Petitions, the Delhi High Court held that Courts under Section 34 of the Act exercise supervisory powers limited to examining whether an Award and the conclusions drawn therein are supported by findings, and not whether the findings are erroneous or sound. The Court further held that illegalities or deficiencies in an Award, if any, should be such that they are apparent on the face of the record and shock the conscience of the Court.

Case Title: Hughes Communications India Pvt Ltd Versus Imaging Solutions Pvt Ltd

Date: 26th April, 2023

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Senior Advocate with Mr.Dharmesh Mishra and Mr. Prateek Luthra, Advocates

Counsel for Defendant: Mr. Varun Kumar, Ms. Pallavi Chopra and Ms. Pooja Chahar, Advocates from Karanjawala & Co.

Click here to read/ download order