Division Bench held that Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act does not empower the Court to remand proceedings for rehearing after setting aside an award. The appeal allowed impugned judgment remanding matter set aside, petition restored.
Impugned judgment of Learned Single Judge set aside; Arbitration Petition restored for disposal afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APP198-18.7
1/3
PNP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.198 OF 2013 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.696 OF 2009
Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India)
versus B4U Multimedia International Ltd.
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Ms. J.N. Pandhi i/b Mr. Suraj M. Shah for the Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Talekar i/b Desai & Diwanji for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C.GUPTE, JJ.
18 July 2013.
P.C. :
The Appeal arises from a judgment of a Learned Single Judge dated 29 October 2012 on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. While setting aside the arbitral award the Learned Single Judge observed as follows :
“However, considering the aspects and the reasoning given above, in my view, the matter required reconsideration on all points. The Arbitral Tribunal, after giving opportunity to both the parties, to reconsider the matter afresh. I am inclined to observe that the parties by consent and /or by filing an application for leading additional and / or more evidence, may take steps to bring on record more material and / or documents if any. I am inclined to keep all points open for the parties to re-agitate.
Consequently the Learned Single Judge observed that :
“Matter is remanded back for rehearing on all points.”
Financial Services Limited v. Kritika Nagpal1 this Court interpreted the
1 Appeal 35 of 2013 in Arbitration Petition 47 of 2009 with connected Appeals..
APP198-18.7
2/3
PNP
provisions of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Section 34(4) provides as follows :
“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award -
(4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Court may, where it is appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by it in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.”
“14. Under sub-section 4 of Section 34, the Court is vested with the discretion, where it is appropriate and where the court is requested by a party, to adjourn the proceedings for a period of time. An adjournment is granted in order to furnish the arbitral tribunal with an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of the Tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the award. Sub-section 4 of Section 34, therefore, does not contemplate a situation where the proceedings are remanded back to the arbitrator after setting aside the arbitral award. Once an arbitral award is set aside under Section 34, that brings to a conclusion a proceeding before the Court. What sub-section 4 of Section 34 envisages is an opportunity to the arbitral tribunal to resume the arbitration proceedings or to take such other action as would eliminate the grounds for setting aside the award. Without meaning to be exhaustive, we can conceive of a situation where the arbitral tribunal has overlooked a particular item of claim on which parties have led evidence and have addressed arguments. A challenge to the arbitral award in such a case would be on the ground that the arbitral tribunal has failed to decide a claim which was raised, controverted and submitted upon. The provisions of Section 34 enable the Court to adjourn the petition under Section 34 so that instead of setting aside the award, the arbitral tribunal can resume the proceedings and take necessary steps to eliminate a ground of challenge. Section 34(4), however, does not contemplate or vest a power in the Court to remand proceedings back to the arbitral tribunal once the Court has set aside the award. Once an award has been set aside, recourse cannot be taken to Section 34(4) since it is evident that the power can be exercised by the Court while adjourning a petition under Section 34.
APP198-18.7
3/3
PNP
of the Constitution is clearly inapposite when dealing with a petition under Section 34. The learned Single Judge has relied upon his earlier decision in Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited Vs. Sharad Munot2 , which seems to suggest that the Court has while setting aside an award a general power to remand the proceedings for reconsideration. We clarify that this would not reflect the correct position in law.”
(S.C. Gupte, J.)
2 Arbitration Petition No.972 of 2009 decided on 31 August 2012.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 contemplates remanding proceedings back to the arbitrator after setting aside the award.
Whether the High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act correctly by setting aside the award and remanding the matter for rehearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Geojit Financial Services Limited v. Kritika NagpalRelied on¶14
Geojit Financial Services Limited v. Kritika Nagpal
Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited Vs. Sharad MunotDistinguished¶14
Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited Vs. Sharad Munot
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India)
B4U Multimedia International Ltd.
D.Y. Chandrachud
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
