INTRODUCTION:

The effect of an award no doubt is that the parties cannot appeal against it as to its merits and the court cannot interfere with it on merits. The Supreme Court has observed:¹ “An Arbitrator is a judge appointed by the parties and as such an award passed by him is not to be lightly interfered with.” The conclusion of an arbitrator on facts, even if erroneous in the opinion of the court cannot be interfered with.² Where the view of the arbitrator is a plausible view and cannot be ruled as one which it is impossible to accept, the court should not substitute its own view in place of that of the arbitrator.³ But this does not mean that there is no check on the arbitrator’s conduct. In order, therefore, to assure proper conduct of proceedings, the law allows certain remedies against an award.⁴

Setting aside of an award means that it is rejected as invalid.⁵ The court would be loath to interfere with the findings of an arbitrator on questions of fact.⁶ The court approached for setting aside cannot sit as a court of appeal and disturb the findings of fact recorded by the arbitrator after considering all the materials or record.⁷ The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the matter of the valuation of the assets of a dissolved partnership because the arbitrator accepted the report which was prepared in accordance with the method agreed to by the partners in the dissolution agreement and the objection was at a belated stage.⁸ Objections can be raised only by a person whose rights are curtailed by the award.⁹

Even where the arbitrator, as required by the parties, prepares a reasoned award and the court gets the power to demand more detailed or adequate reasons, the court will be vigilant to see that the power is used only for the proper purpose and not as an indirect way of obtaining a review of the merits of an award.¹⁰ An effect of setting aside is that the parties become free to go back to arbitration or to have the matter decided through court. Some of the grounds on which an award can be set aside are stated in Section 34.¹¹

Section 34 makes it clear that an award can be set aside only on the grounds enumerated therein.¹² When the section emphatically uses a particular expression with the use of the word ‘only’ then it limits the scope as provided in the section itself and it cannot be stretched beyond that.¹³ In Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia,¹⁴ the Apex Court has observed that the grounds of challenge to an Arbitral award are very limited. An Award can be set aside only on a ground of challenge under sections 12, 13 and 16 provided such a challenge is first raised before the Arbitral Tribunal and has been rejected by the Tribunal. The only other provision is section 34 of the said Act. The ground enumerated therein could be pressed into service within the scope of Section 34 application subject to section 4 of the 1996 Act.¹⁵ In Govt., N.C.T. of Delhi v. Khem Chand,¹⁶ no ground stated in section 34 was found, so the award was not set aside.¹⁷

The totality of the grounds for setting aside as are available under the Act has been presented by the Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.¹⁸ The court can set aside an award for the reasons mentioned in S. 34(2)(a)(i) to (v), S. 28(1)(a),¹⁹ S. 34(2)(b)(ii) on ground of conflict with the public policy of India and for the reasons stated in Ss. 13(5)²⁰ and 16(6).²¹

One of the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award is invalidity of Arbitration Agreement under Section 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which shall be discussed in the present paper in detail.

SETTING ASIDE OF AWARD WHEN THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS INVALID

Law is well settled that an Arbitrator cannot travel beyond the terms of the agreement. It is not open to an Arbitrator to rewrite the terms of agreement, which have been agreed to between the parties. The Arbitrator or umpire, has no authority or jurisdiction to “abdicate the terms” of the “contract” or what the “parties desired” under the “contract”. When an award is made plainly contrary to the terms of the contract not by misinterpretation but which is plainly contrary to the terms of the contract it would certainly lead to an inference that there is an “error apparent” on the face of the award which results in “jurisdictional error” in the award. In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K. Ahuja and Co.,²² the Apex Court has held: “The law is well settled that if the award made by the Arbitrator is a non speaking one the difficulty of showing that there is an error apparent on the face of the award becomes insurmountable and ordinarily such award cannot be challenged at all unless it is shown that the Arbitrator has only travelled outside the contract or agreement which gives him the jurisdiction. The law is equally well settled that in cases of speaking awards the court can interfere if there is an error apparent on the face of the award itself; it could also be shown that Arbitrator has misconducted himself in arriving at certain conclusions which are either plainly contrary to law or to the terms of the contract or ignored the provisions of the contract or the evidence on record and such other similar matters.”²³

Legal History/Background

Earlier the Privy Council while holding that the words “otherwise invalid”, as they occurred in 30(c) of the 1940 Act, did not include an objection to the validity of the reference held that if there was no valid reference, the purported award was a nullity and could be challenged in any appropriate proceeding.²⁴ It was formerly held that the words “otherwise invalid” did not include the question whether there was an arbitration agreement or a valid reference to arbitration.²⁵ It is submitted that these decisions were impliedly overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Omprakash Re.²⁶

All the High Courts were of the view that an award which was invalid on the ground of the invalidity of the reference was “otherwise invalid” within the meaning of Section 30 of the 1940 Act and that those words were not to be construed ejusdem generis with the preceding words.²⁷ But the contrary view was taken by the Patna High Court.²⁸

Thus, the words “or is otherwise invalid”, as they occurred in 30(c) of the 1940 Act, were wide enough to cover every form of invalidity of the award including its invalidity on the ground²⁹ that there was no valid order of reference to arbitration² or on the ground that there was no valid or subsisting arbitration agreement.³⁰ Though those words are not there in S. 34 or anywhere else in the 1996 Act, the grounds of setting aside covered by these words are likely to fall within one or other clauses of sections 12, 13, 16, 31 and 34.

Invalid Agreement / Reference – Award Nullity

If the arbitration agreement is invalid, the reference thereunder and consequently the award on the basis of such reference would be invalid and can be set aside. The validity of an arbitration agreement can be challenged on any of the grounds on which the validity of a contract may be challenged.³¹ In cases where the arbitration clause is contained in a contract, the arbitration clause will be invalid if the contract is invalid.³² Where the party questions the very existence of the partnership agreement on the ground of it being a nullity, the parties to the reference are not precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator or the award made by him in spite of the fact that they participated in the proceedings. Where the very foundation of the reference becomes shaken on the ground of the invalidity of the agreement containing the arbitration clause, the participation of the party in the arbitration proceedings culminating in the award will be of no consequence and he would be entitled to move an application for declaration that the arbitration agreement does not exist or the same is a nullity or void ab initio.³³ In Corn Products Co. India Ltd. v. Ayaz Ghadiya,³⁴ reference was made to the rules prevailing in Maharashtra but there were no rules prevailing, so the agreement was not rendered vague but reference was made to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. In the case of Bhagat Construction Co. v. Delhi Development Authority,³⁵ compensation for the delay in completion of the work was to be determined by the superintending engineer and his decision was to be final, reference of the matter to arbitration and the award were held to be a nullity.

The agreement for reference to arbitration should be liberally construed by the court so as to lean in favour of upholding the award given by the arbitrators, but that is no ground for sustaining the award where the arbitrators have clearly misdirected themselves and have exceeded the scope of their authority.³⁶ Where the appointment of arbitrator upon original application of reference which was defective but defect was subsequently removed, it cannot be challenged since the defect is one of irregularity and not of want of jurisdiction.³⁷

If the agreement is invalid or reference to arbitration is invalid then the award in relation thereto will be invalid and the same can be set aside.³⁸ The Court after appointing an arbitrator has no jurisdiction to refer the disputes to the arbitrator. An invalid reference is a good ground for setting aside an award.³⁹ Where the persona designata had not referred all the disputes between the parties to the arbitrator and the respondent had not objected to it, inasmuch as he accepted the same and no objections were taken against it in the lower court, the reference could not be said to be invalid.⁴⁰ Where the agreement is denied and there is no valid submission or reference any award will be void.⁴¹

If the consideration for entering into a contract with an arbitration clause is illegal, then there is no valid arbitration agreement and any award given in respect thereof will be invalid.⁴² If one of the considerations of agreement to refer was dropping of pending criminal prosecution for a non-compoundable offence, the whole agreement and reference is illegal and void. Though motive for contract is not necessarily its considerations, yet where promise to drop prosecution was given and accepted as conventional inducement for several promises, it is one of the considerations for agreement to refer.⁴³

In case an agreement is denied and there is no valid submission, the matter relating to the agreement cannot go to arbitration and the award on that basis is without any legal validity.⁴⁴ An award based on uncertain reference would be void.⁴⁵ It is from the terms of the arbitration agreement that the arbitrator derives his authority to arbitrate, if in law there is no valid arbitration agreement, the proceedings of the arbitrator would be unauthorized. Every agreement to bind the government must comply with the requirements of Section 173 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and waiver will not preclude the Government from pleading absence of an agreement in consonance with law.⁴⁶

Each of the separate disputes arising out of separate agreements between the same parties must be decided in separate references by the arbitrator appointed for determining a particular issue or dispute. Where that has not been done, the award is liable to be set aside as the arbitrators had no right to hear both the separate disputes arising out of separate contracts in one reference.⁴⁷ However, a different view has been taken by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, which has laid down that there is nothing wrong in making a single reference to the arbitrator of all the disputes arising out of different agreements between the same parties, provided the terms and conditions of all these agreements are identical.⁴⁸

Where the parties were quite satisfied with the proceedings and none of them had ever objected to the invalidity of the arbitration agreement or the reference being incomplete or the proceeding being vitiated in any manner, they would be stopped from raising technical pleas to get the award set aside.⁴⁹ A Fire Insurance Policy provided for adjudication of loss or damage “independently of all other question”. Such a stipulation does not prohibit other questions from being submitted to the arbitrator along with the question of quantum of such loss of damage.⁵⁰

Where, the agreement is not illegal the parties appeared before the arbitrator, filed their claims and counter-claims, produced materials and took part in the proceedings, the award is not invalid.⁵¹ But when the agreement is held to be invalid, both claim as well as counter-claim would not be maintained.⁵² On the plea raised by the appellant that the trial court erred in rejecting the counter claims, it was held that once the agreement was held to be unenforceable, no right accrued to either party on the ground of breach of contract and therefore counter claims filed by the appellant were rightly rejected.⁵³

In Ram Singh v. Subimal Roy Choudhary,⁵⁴ the very existence of the arbitration agreement was challenged. The contractor did not file the original agreement but filed a photocopy thereof. The agreement referred to a rate list supplied by the contractor and agreed to by the objector. On examination, it was found that the typewriter used for typing both the documents was different. It was held that the award passed on such agreement was bad in law.⁵⁵

Award on Non-existant Arbitration Agreement

An award given in supposition of an arbitration agreement or in absence of a valid enforceable agreement or on the basis of an invalid arbitration agreement would be a nullity.⁵⁶ If a party questions the very existence of the arbitration agreement on the ground of it being a nullity, the parties are not precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator or the award made by him in spite of the fact that they were parties to the reference and participated before the arbitrator. When the very foundation of the reference to the arbitrator is being shaken on the ground of the alleged invalidity of the agreement containing the arbitration clause, the participation of the party in the arbitration proceedings, culminating in an award will be of no consequence.⁵⁷

If the validity of the award was challenged on the ground that by the expiry of the period of six months within which the contract works were to be performed, no work order was issued and the work came to an end, therefore, any resort to arbitration clause thereafter was incompetent and would vitiate the award and the other party disputed this contention, it was held that the award given in such circumstances could not be said to be invalid.⁵⁸

In the absence of a valid enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties, the matter could not be referred for arbitration and an award given on such a reference is liable to be set aside.⁵⁹ The trial court held that objections to the award deserved to be dismissed. In appeal the appellate court held that appointment of the arbitrator was void ab initio. A petition was filed against the said order before the High Court for quashing the judgment of the appellate court. There the petitioner referred to a clause of notice inviting tender where it was specifically stated that the Chief General Manager was the competent authority to appoint an arbitrator and hence appointment of arbitrator was legal. Held that the appellate court failed to take notice of this important aspect of the matter and thus the judgment of the appellate court was set aside.⁶⁰

A mere denial of the existence of the contract of arbitration by one of the parties does not denude the arbitrators of the jurisdiction. By merely denying the existence of the agreement, the parties cannot unilaterally revoke the agreement as it is irrevocable in law except with the leave of the court.⁶¹

Award on An Unconcluded Agreement

Where no contract could be concluded, it was held that the arbitration clause contained in it also perished. An award under such circumstances was a nullity.⁶² In view of the specific objection that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and consequently, there was not and could not have been any reference to the arbitrators, failure of the trial court to order production of arbitration agreement and of reference and to decide thereon vitiated its judgment.⁶³ In a case where there was no concluded agreement between the parties with respect to the disputed matters, on account of the fact that the formal acceptance was sent when the tender offer already stood lapsed, the arbitration clause in such an agreement was also not in existence and any award made in proceedings initiated upon the basis of the said agreement where liable to be set aside.⁶⁴ The word ‘not enforceable by law’ means that the agreement is not enforceable under the existing law and does not mean that the parties are suffering from some disability from entering into the agreement which is not enforceable under some substantive law.⁶⁵ Where from the correspondence between the parties, it was found that the agreement had not been concluded, the arbitration clause was not given affect to and so the award can be set aside.⁶⁶

Mere printing of conditions on the reverse of the invoice would, at best, be an offer made by the respondent to the petitioner. Unless the said offer was accepted by the petitioner, it could not result in a binding and enforceable contract. Where purchase offer itself made it clear that the arbitration clause was not operative, then it could not be said that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, thus it was not concluded and hence the award could not be upheld.⁶⁷

Where a breweries company made a voluntary offer to Government for supply of rum to Army and the Government sent acceptance of the tender containing arbitration clause which the Company did not sign, it was held that there was no arbitration agreement and award made on such agreement was liable to be set aside.⁶⁸

An agreement does not arise on the acceptance of a tender. Subsequent formalities such as execution of the agreement and issuing of work order are equally important. In their absence there is no contract and no claim for damages. Arbitration cannot be demanded.⁶⁹

Ultra Vires Arbitration Agreement

The case of Dodsal P. Ltd. v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking⁷⁰ came before the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court on reference by the Supreme Court in Dodsal P. Ltd. v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking.⁷¹ The question referred was whether an arbitration agreement contained in an ultra vires contract in the sense that it was in violation of the NDMC Act could sustain an arbitration proceeding and an award resulting in favour of the contractor. The Supreme Court did not consider this question. The award had taken 5 years to come and parties had been fighting over it for about 15 years. In view of the circumstances and history of long litigation, the Supreme Court directed DESU to pay the principal amount awarded by the arbitrator without interest. The referred question of law was left to be decided in some other appropriate proceedings.

When there was no subsisting valid agreement between the parties after the old agreement containing the arbitration clause stood superseded, any reference to arbitration would be wholly uncalled for. Any participation before the arbitrator could not constitute waiver against the party, more so when he had taken his plea before the arbitrator.⁷²

When a party consented to arbitration by an arbitral tribunal as per the arbitration clause in the arbitration agreement and participated in the proceedings, it cannot later take the plea that there was no arbitration agreement, even if this was true. Thus when both the parties accepted the existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement and they proceeded on that basis, the appellant cannot thereafter take the plea of “no arbitration clause” fot the first time in appeal before the High Court.⁷³

Invalid Arbitration Agreement – Jurisdictional Issues

Where objections as to jurisdiction were raised as a preliminary issue, and they were based upon the contention that no agreement had come into existence because of the failure on the part of the contractor to make the security deposit, it was held that the arbitrator’s failure in considering the preliminary issue had vitiated his award. The arbitrator should not have pronounced upon the merits of the case without first depositing the preliminary objections.⁷⁴ But presenting a challenge to the validity of the agreement three years after the cause of action, the challenge will be held to be time barred.⁷⁵

An appellant took the plea that he was not a party to the arbitration agreement entered into between the first and the second respondent and hence he was not liable thereunder. Materials on record also supported the stand of the appellant. However, the respondent averred that the appellant was actively involved. It was held that before fastening the appellant with liability, the arbitral tribunal should have dealt with the fundamental objections as to its jurisdiction.⁷⁶

If the arbitrator has not examined the plea of lack of jurisdiction and as to whether the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties complied with the requirements of law as contained in Art. 299 of the Constitution, the award passed by him is liable to be set aside.⁷⁷

Arbitration Agreement to be Produced for Setting Aside of Award

Where the application is made to court alleging that there is no valid arbitration agreement, then the petitioner should produce the arbitration agreement to enable the court to consider such allegations. Without such an agreement being produced, the application cannot be sustained. Where a tender offer was not accepted within a stipulated period and hence the offer lapsed as there was no concluded agreement.⁷⁸ The arbitration clause in the alleged agreement does not exist and cannot be enforced. If any award is given in respect of the disputes between the said parties, it will be invalid.⁷⁹

WHEN AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS CALLED VALID

Validity of the Arbitration Agreement and the Contract Act, 1872

According to sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award may be set aside by the court if the arbitration agreement is proved to be not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or under the law for the time being in force. The award may also be set aside if there is no valid reference because it is only valid reference which gives the jurisdiction to the arbitrator.⁸⁰ The validity of the agreement has to be tested on the basis of the law to which the parties have subjected it. Where there is no such indication, the validity would be examined according to the law which is in force for the time being. This would naturally mean the law of the country where the contract is made.⁸¹

The term ‘agreement’ has been defined in Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act to mean – “Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement.” Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Contract Act makes it clear that an agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void. According to Clause (h) of Section 2 an agreement enforceable by law is a contract. According to Clause (i), an agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more parties thereto, but not at the option of other or others, is a voidable contract. According to Clause (j), a contract which ceases to be enforceable by law becomes void when it ceases to be enforceable.⁸²

Chapter II of the Contract Act, 1872, deals with contracts, which are void and voidable. Under Section 10 all agreements are contracts, if they are made by the free consent of the parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be void. Section 11 refers to the persons who are competent to contract. On principle, therefore, it must be held that when a contract is invalid, every part of it, including the clause as to arbitration contained therein, must also be invalid.⁸³

For the purposes of Section 34 of the 1996 Act, the agreement executed between the parties must not be an invalid agreement. A valid arbitration agreement should not contravene any of the provisions of the Contract Act or any other statute, more specifically Section 7 of the said Act. Arbitration commenced and continued on the basis of such an invalid agreement or the award made in consequence thereof is liable to be set aside under Section 34.⁸⁴

Ingredients Of A Valid Arbitration Agreement

The essential ingredients of the ‘Arbitration Agreement’ are provided in Section 2 (1) read with Section 7 of the 1996 Act. To constitute a valid arbitration agreement between the parties all the essential ingredients are required to be proved. Section 7 recognizes that an arbitration agreement should be in writing and is a document signed by the parties which is proved from the exchange of letters, telegrams, telex or other means of tele-communications or from the exchange of statement of claims and defence which provide a record or existence of the agreement.⁸⁵ In the case of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. Encon Builders (I) Pvt. Ltd.⁸⁶ the Supreme Court held that following are the essential elements of a valid arbitration agreement:

· There must be a present or future difference in connection with some contemplated affair.

· There must be the intention of the parties to settle such difference by a private tribunal.

· The parties must agree in writing to bound by the decision of such tribunal.

· The parties must ad idem.⁸⁷

To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mallikarjun v. Gulbarga University.⁸⁸

CONCLUSION:

Arbitration being a consensual adjudication by a private judge, jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to arbitrate emanates from the arbitration agreement. If the arbitration agreement does not exist or if there is such agreement but it is invalid, the tribunal will have no jurisdiction to arbitrate on the dispute submitted to it for arbitration arising out of a so-called arbitration agreement. It will be a case of patent lack of jurisdiction, which cannot be conferred on the tribunal by the acquiescence of agreement of parties. A priori, in the absence of an existing valid ‘arbitration agreement’, there can be no valid arbitration.

An arbitration agreement will be non-existant if any of the parties to it did not have legal capacity to sign it, if it was induced by misrepresentation or if the contract was illegal in the country in which it was made. Furthermore, the contract may have simply come to an end by performance, total repudiation or frustration. An alleged party to an arbitration agreement may not be bound by the agreement, because the arbitration clause was contained in a document which was assented to by the other party only; or he may claim that the legal entity signing the agreement was a different and distinct legal person. Likewise, if the claim is time-barred or the arbitration clause is inoperative or incapable of being performed, the arbitration will be invalid. An arbitration agreement will be invalid for any of the reasons contemplated by the law to which the parties have subjected it, or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force in India. For instance, the agreement will be invalid if it is not in writing or not arbitrable under the applicable law.

The objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement have, in the first instance, to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. If the tribunal accepts the objection that there is no existing or valid arbitration agreement, it will have no jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration of the disputes submitted to it. However, the decision of the arbitral tribunal accepting the objection is reviewable by the court in appeal. But if the tribunal rejects the objection, it will continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an award. Such award is liable to be set aside by the court, on an application under ss 34(2) (a) (i) and (ii), by an aggrieved party. The aggrieved party, however, is required to furnish proof that a party was under some incapacity; or the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force in India. It is useful to note again, however, that if the parties have not subjected the arbitration agreement to a particular law, expressly or by an implication, its validity is judged according to the law of the place of arbitration.

REFERENCES:

1. Indu Engg & Textiles Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, (2001) 5 SCC 691.

2. Ibid.

3. Smita Contractors Ltd. v. Euro Alloys Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 728.

4. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. State of U.P. v. Harish Ch. & Co., (1999) 1 SCC 63.

6. B.V. Radha Krishna v. Sponge Iron India Ltd., (1997) 4 SCC 693.

7. Rajasthan SRTC v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700.

8. Jugal K.P. Sharma v. V.P. Sharma, (1993) 1 SCC 114

9. Keval Krishna Balakram Hitkari v. Anil Keval Hitkari, AIR 2000 Bom 108.

10. Universal Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Handels-und Transport GMBH, [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 517.

11. State of Rajasthan v. New Bharat Construction, (2002) 1 SCC 659.

12. State of UP v. Allied Constructions, (2003) 7 SCC 396.

13. Samantaray Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2007) 2 Arb LR 309.

14. (2002) 3 SCC 572.

15. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Arbitration Agreements & Awards, 126, (2^nd ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 2006).

16. AIR 2003 Del 314. The grounds for setting aside an arbitral award stated in S. 34 are exhaustive and the court can set aside an award only if any of the grounds mentioned therein is found. See also, Kesar Enterprises v. DCM Shriram Industries Ltd., (2001) Supp Arb LR 58; Assam Urban Water Supply and Severage Board v. Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd., (2003) 2 Arb LR 301; National Buildings Construction v. Asia Electricals P. Ltd., (2003) 2 RAJ 258.

17. Ircon International Ltd. v Arvind Construction Co., (2000) 1 Arb LR 105 (Del).

18. (2003) 5 SCC 705.

19. Not following the substantive law for the time being in force in India.

20. Rejection of the challenge to the arbitrator under Section 13 by the reason of his impartiality, etc.

21. Protest as to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.

22. (2001) 4 SCC 86.

23. Supra note 22 at p. 121.

24. Chhabba Lal v. Kallu Lal, AIR 1946 PC 72.

25. Bihar State Co-operative Bank v. Phosphate Co. Ltd., AIR 1975 Pat. 63.

26. Union of India v. Om Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 1745.

27. Ahmed Ullah v. Hafiz Ullah, AIR 1961 All 173; Saha & Co. v. Ishwar Singh Kripal Singh, AIR 1976 Cal 321; Debendra Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1978 Raj 134; Musafir Ali v. Raysul Haq Chaudhury, AIR 1950 Assam 114; Rala Ram v. Bansi Lal Jagnu Nath, AIR 1932 Lah 239; Vulson v. Kelukutty, AIR 1959 Ker 174; Mohammad Valli Asmal v. Valli Asmal, AIR 1924 Bom 324; Arjuna Pudhana v. Nakula Choudhury, AIR 1953 Orissa 75; Lakshminarayan Tantri v. Ramchandra Tantri, AIR 1919 Mad 1029; Ardeshar Irani v. State of M.P., AIR 1974 MP 199.

28. Basant Lal v. Surendra Prasad, AIR 1957 Pat 417.

29. Food Corporation of India v. A. Mohd. Yunus, (1987) 2 Arb LR 174.

30. A.R. Savkur v. Amritlal Kalidas, AIR 1954 Bom 293.

31. Dr. Avtar Singh, Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 272, (8^th ed., Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2007).

32. Jaikishan Dass Mull v. L. Kanoria & Co., (1974) 2 SCC 521.

33. National Research Development Corpn v. Silicon Ceramica Ltd., AIR 1998 Del 52. The court relied upon Khardah Co. Ltd. v. Rayman & Co. India (P) Ltd., (1996) 2 SCC 667; UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure (P) Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1373.

34. AIR 1997 Bom 331.

35. (2003) 4 RAJ 221 (Del).

36. Suwalal v. Clive Mills, AIR 1960 Cal 90.

37. N.D. Basu, Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 750, (10^th ed., Orient Publishing Company, New Delhi, 2006).

38. Saha & Co. v. Ishar Singh Kripal Singh & Co., AIR 1956 Cal 321.

39. Union of India v. Narinder Singh Kanwar, AIR 1982 Pat 238.

40. Ibid.

41. Union of India v. Om Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 1754; Phoolkali v. 1^st Additional Dist. Judge, AIR 1984 All 390,

42. Nandkishore v. International Merchantile Corporation (I) Ltd., AIR 1953 Cal 415.

43. Ibid.

44. Chinoy Chalani and Co. v. Y. Anjiah, AIR 1958 AP 384.

45. Laxman Prasad v. Ram Dularey Gupta, AIR 1952 VP 25.

46. Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1685.

47. Prabartak Commercial Corporation v. Ramsahaimull More Ltd., AIR 1963 Cal 137.

48. Tikkam Chand Jian v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (1988) 2 Arb LR 380.

49. Assadullah Makhdoomi v. Lassa Baba, AIR 1966 J & K 1.

50. National Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1956 Cal 11; Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. India Private Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 90; Khardah Co. Ltd. v. Ramon & Co. India (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1810.

51. Executive Engineer v. J.C. Budharaj, AIR 1981 Ori 172.

52. PC Markanda, Law Relating to Arbitration and Conciliation, 730, (7^th ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2009).

53. Union of India v. Col. L.S.N. Murthy, (2006) 3 RAJ 665 (AP) (DB).

54. AIR 2007 NOC 14.

55. Ibid.

56. Vallabh Pitte v. Narsingdas Gobindaram Kalani, AIR 1963 Bom 157.

57. National Research Development Corporation v. Silicon Ceramics Ltd., AIR 1998 Del 52.

58. Gangadhar Sarda v. Union of India, AIR 1984 Sik 7.

59. Prem Sagar Chawla v. Messers Security & Finance (P.) Ltd., AIR 1968 Del 21.

60. Brij Bhan Gupta v. Union of India, (2007) 2 Arb LR 47 (P & H).

61. Vallabh Pitte v. Narsingdas Govindram Kalani, Supra note 52.

62. Union of India v. Rail Udyog, (2002) 1 Arb LR 58 (Del).

63. Fulmani Devi v. Sheo Govind Prasad Agrawal, AIR 1985 Pat 156.

64. Director-General Of Supplies and Disposals v. Coventry Matters Corporation, AIR 1984 NOC 153.

65. Mahant Singh v. U.V.A. Yi, AIR 1939 PC 110.

66. M/s. Zodiac Electrical Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1918. See also, K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573; Devika Mehra v. Ameeta Mehra, (2005) 1 RAJ 170 (Del); Rajesh Jain v. Ashish Investments, (2005) 1 RAJ 461 (Bom).

67. Taipack Ltd. v. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal, (2007) 3 Arb LR 402 (Del).

68. Union of India v. Mohan Meakan Breweries Ltd., AIR 1988 NOC 33 (Del).

69. State of Haryana v. Lalchand, AIR 1984 SC 1326.

70. (2001) 9 SCC 339.

71. (1996) 2 SCC 576.

72. President of India v. Kesar Singh, AIR 1966 J & K 113.

73. Pandey & Co. Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (2007) 1 SCC 467.

74. Bodh Raj Daulat Ram v. Food Corpn of India, (2003) 4 RAJ 685.

75. Mohta Alloys Steel Works v. Mohta Finance & Leasing Co., (2002) 10 SCC 196.

76. Manoj Kumar Goswami v. P.V. Sanghavi, AIR 2007 NOC 1632.

77. Union of India v. Jai Society Wood Works, (1999) 1 RAJ 99 (Del).

78. C.R. Datta, Law Relating to Commercial & Domestic Arbitration, 412 (1^st ed., Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur, 2008).

79. Fulamana Devi v. Sheo Govind Prasad Aggarwal, 1986 Arb LR 52; Director-General of Supplies & Disposals v. Conventry Metals Corporation Ltd., AIR 1984 NOC 153.

80. Charan Sharan Khemka v. Achint Chemicals, (2005) 2 RAJ 463.

81. State of UP v. Allied Constructions, Supra note 21.

82. G.K. Kwatra, The New Arbitration & Conciliation Law of India, 45-46, (The Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi, 1998).

83. Jai Kishan Dass Mull v. Luchhiminarain Kanoria & Co., (1974) 2 SCC 521.

84. Justice R.P. Sethi, Commentary on Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 719-720, (Vol. 1, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi).

85. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. M/s Essar Oil Ltd. and Others, (2005) 1 RAJ 132; D. Dhanamjaya Rao v. Bank of India, (2005) 1 RAJ 390.

86. (2003) 7 SCC 418.

87. O.P. Malhotra, The Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation, 252, (2^nd ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur).

88. (2004) 1 SCC 372.

Received on 07.05.2013 Modified on 14.08.2013

Int. J. Rev. & Res. Social Sci. 2(1): Jan. – Mar. 2014; Page 78-84