In NHAI v PROGRESSIVE-MVR (JV), (2018) 14 SCC 688, the Supreme Court held:
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: B.
1. NHAI v. Progressive-MVR (JV) (2018) and Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) clarified the narrow grounds for setting aside arbitral awards under Section 34:
2. (i) Courts CANNOT re-appreciate evidence;
3. (ii) Courts CANNOT substitute their view for the arbitrator's view on COMMERCIAL MATTERS;
4. (iii) PATENT ILLEGALITY (post-2015) is narrowly construed: only when the award is in violation of fundamental policy of Indian law, conflicts with the basic notion of justice / morality, OR contains a patent illegality on the face of the award.
5. (iv) The pre-2015 wider public policy review (Saw Pipes, ONGC v. Saw Pipes 2003) was NARROWED by 2015 Amendment.
6. (v) Associate Builders (2015) elaborated: public policy means fundamental policy of Indian law, basic notion of justice, perversity that shocks the conscience.
7. (vi) Errors of fact/law are NOT grounds — only PATENT ILLEGALITY narrowly construed.
8. Hence option B is correct.
_Source: Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Bare Act) + Mediation Act 2023 — NHAI v. Progressive-MVR (JV), (2018) 14 SCC 688; Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49_
Related questions
In SBP & Co. v. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD (2005) 8 SCC 618, the Supreme Court held that the JUSection 28 Arbitration Act 1996 specifies APPLICABLE LAW:Section 39 Arbitration Act 1996 grants the arbitral tribunal LIEN on the:INTERIM AWARD under Arbitration Act 1996:Section 38 Arbitration Act 1996 (DEPOSITS) requires parties to:DOMESTIC ARBITRATION versus INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:Section 21 Arbitration Act 1996 defines COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION as:Section 43 Arbitration Act 1996 (LIMITATION) provides that the period of LIMITATION ACT 19