The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
Introduction
The sanctity of any dispute resolution process, be it litigation or arbitration, rests on the fundamental promise of a fair opportunity to be heard and defend one’s case. In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court sharply reinforced this principle in Iqbal Trading Company v. Union of India & Ors1., by setting aside an arbitral award and the order upholding it, on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal’s refusal to grant a party access to crucial documents and its failure to provide a reasoned judgment amounted to a grave violation of natural justice and due process. This judgment, which arose from an appeal filed by Iqbal Trading Company against the Union of India, demands a thorough examination of the legal framework governing arbitral challenges in India.
The journey to determining the validity of the Arbitral Award first required establishing the correct governing statute, a procedural wrong that can vitiate the entire process. Here, the court found the District Judge’s Impugned Order fundamentally wrong in holding that the Arbitration Act, 1940, applied.
Why was this finding incorrect? the 1996 Act2, which came into force on January 25, 1996, makes it “abundantly clear” under Section 85(2)(a) that the old 1940 Act would not apply to proceedings commenced after this date. Under Section 21 of the 1996 Act, arbitration proceedings formally commence when the request for arbitration is received. Since the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted and entered reference in April 1996, well after the 1996 Act came into force, the Court affirmed the prior Liberty Order that the 1996 Act was the only law applicable. This crucial finding not only invalidated the District Judge’s approach but also established that the challenge filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, was not barred by limitation, rejecting the Impugned Order’s contrary holding and making the standard of review set by the 1996 Act paramount.
With the correct legal framework confirmed, what then is the appropriate standard for judicial scrutiny of an arbitral award?
As an Appellate Court hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the Court held its jurisdiction to be “identical and co-extensive” with the scope of review that the Section 34 Court (the District Judge) ought to have applied. Citing the Supreme Court in Malluru Mallappa (D) through LRs vs. Karuvathappa & Ors3., the Court reaffirmed that “an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the original court” where all questions of law and fact are open for reconsideration, requiring the appellate court to “display conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons.” Similarly, the ruling in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking4 reinforced that the jurisdiction under Section 37 is “akin to” and restricted by the limited grounds for challenge under Section 34. This required the Bombay High Court to examine the award through the narrow prism of procedural fairness and public policy, not the merits of the underlying dispute.
But when does a procedural irregularity become so severe that it warrants setting aside an award for breaching the “fundamental policy of India”?
The heart of the challenge lay in the denial of natural justice, a cardinal principle whose violation is a recognized ground for challenge under Section 34. This concept finds expression in Section 18 of the Act, which mandates: “The parties shall be treated with equality and each party shall be given a full opportunity to present his case.” This principle is echoed in Section 34(2)(a)(iii), which allows an award to be set aside if a party “was otherwise unable to present his case.” In this dispute, the core issue was the Government’s claim for damages.
To award damages, an Arbitral Tribunal must examine and reason on critical issues, including the difference between the contracted and actual procurement price, the claimant’s efforts to mitigate losses, and the veracity of the defense that meat of the required scale was unavailable. The Arbitral Tribunal failed to address these points, instead committing two fatal procedural errors that constituted a denial of natural justice.
What were these fatal errors that effectively “trampled upon basic expectations of natural justice principles”?
First, the Tribunal refused to supply crucial documents, such as market rate quotations, supply orders, and vouchers that the Government relied upon to substantiate its claim, denying the defending party the factual ingredients necessary to mount a defense. The Tribunal dismissed these documents as irrelevant or outside the purview, thereby denying a “full opportunity to present his case” and squarely attracting Section 34(2)(a)(iii). Second, the Tribunal was contractually obligated under Clause 21(g) to provide reasons for any dispute over ₹30,000, yet the Arbitral Award, which granted the Government’s entire claim, was “conspicuously silent on the reasons,” reading “like a summary judgment without any analysis whatsoever.” This dual failure—denial of inspection and delivery of an unreasoned award against an explicit contractual stipulation—was held to be untenable. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in ONGC vs. Discovery Enterprises (P) Ltd5., the Court noted that shutting out vital evidence or denying inspection before determining a claim is a fundamental error of law and a denial of natural justice.
Ultimately, did these procedural failures amount to a lack of a “judicial approach” that conflicted with “public policy”?
The Court found that the Arbitral Award indeed betrayed a lack of a judicial approach. As established by the Supreme Court in Associate Builders vs. DDA6, a judicial approach “demands that a decision be fair, reasonable and objective,” and the court, while not acting as an appellate authority on facts, must ensure the decision is not “arbitrary and whimsical.”
The Associate Builders ruling further cautions against perversity, a finding arrived at by “ignoring or excluding relevant material.” The Arbitral Award, by denying inspection of material documents and delivering an unreasoned, summary finding on a fact-intensive claim for damages, clearly failed the judicial approach test. It was an arbitrary determination and a product of “abject denial of natural justice,” thus falling foul of the public policy ground for setting aside an award. Therefore, applying the standard of review under Section 37, which is co-extensive with the Section 34 jurisdiction, the High Court set aside both the Arbitral Award and the Impugned Order upholding it, sending a clear message that due process in arbitration is not a mere technicality, but an inviolable legal mandate.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s verdict is more than just a remedy for a wrongly decided contract dispute; it is a powerful affirmation of the bedrock principles of justice that must permeate commercial arbitration. By setting aside the award, Justice Sundaresan delivered a crucial message: the limited scope of judicial review under the 1996 Act does not license procedural lawlessness. An Arbitral Tribunal is not merely a mediator of convenience but an adjudicatory body bound by the same fundamental standards of fairness, transparency, and reason that govern civil courts. The finding that the denial of inspection of crucial documents and the failure to provide a reasoned judgment constituted a violation of natural justice (Section 18 and Section 34(2)(a)(iii)) establishes a high threshold for procedural integrity. This ruling serves as a vital safeguard, preventing arbitration from devolving into an opaque, carte blanche process where due process can be sacrificed in the name of speed and finality. It compels arbitrators to act with a necessary “judicial approach,” ensuring that their awards are not only outcomes but also products of a fair and defensible process, protecting the credibility of arbitration as a whole.
Looking ahead, this judgment poses significant future ramifications and critical questions for the arbitration ecosystem in India. Will this stricter judicial scrutiny on reasoned awards and discovery rights lead to more successful challenges, potentially undermining the goal of minimal judicial interference? How will arbitral institutions adapt their protocols to ensure tribunals proactively document their reasons for denying information requests, thereby insulating their awards from future challenges based on natural justice? Furthermore, the Court’s emphasis on the contractual mandate for a reasoned award (Clause 21(g)) highlights the criticality of drafting comprehensive arbitration agreements. Moving forward, parties must evaluate whether to explicitly include detailed discovery and evidence sharing procedures to prevent such procedural infirmities. Ultimately, the ruling underscores the fact that institutional legitimacy is paramount. The burden is now firmly placed on Arbitral Tribunals to demonstrate, with rigor and clarity, that every party was given a full opportunity to present its case, ensuring that the promise of efficient dispute resolution is never bought at the cost of the fundamental right to a fair hearing.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Anuja Pandit
