Insofar as judgment of Supreme Court in case of Associate Builders (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is held by the Supreme Court that when a court is applying the 'public policy' test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. It is held that the arbitrator is ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award. It is held by the Supreme Court that an award can be said to be against justice only when it shocks the conscience of the court. If the award is in contravention with the Arbitration Actitself, it would be regarded as patent illegality. It is held that the contravention of the substantive law of India would result in the death knell of an arbitral award. In my view, the learned arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction and has rendered an award though there was no arbitration agreement entered into between the parties. The impugned award thus was in contravention of the substantive law of India and showed patent illegality. The impugned award in my view thus has been rightly set aside by the learned Principal District Judge.
Bombay High Court
M/S. Gill & Company Pvt. Ltd. ... vs M/S. Patodia Ginning Factory on 20 April, 2016
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2015
Citation:2016(3) MHLJ890