PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. versus NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO)

PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. versus NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO)

The High Court correctly concluded that the arbitral awards were perverse and patently illegal because the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract clauses was one that no reasonable person could have adopted (not even a possible view), and therefore the awards were susceptible to being set aside under Section 34 (as informed by Section 34(2A) for domestic awards); consequently the High Court properly dismissed the review petitions and this Court dismissed the SLPs.

Parties
Petitioner: PATEL ENGINEERING LTD.; Respondent: NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposal by Supreme Court (slps Dismissed)
Outcome
Special Leave Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 34(2 A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 37 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Patent Illegality, Perversity of Arbitral Awards, Maintainability of Slps Against Review Orders, Review Petitions, Arbitration and Conciliation (amendment) Act, 2015
Arbitration Contract Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Section 34(2 A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 37 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Patent Illegality Perversity of Arbitral Awards +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PATEL ENGINEERING LTD.

Petitioner

NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposal by Supreme Court (slps Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court correctly set aside the arbitral awards as perverse or patently illegal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended)
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred by applying pre-2015 law and not giving effect to the 2015 amendment (Section 34(2A))
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner could file review petitions after dismissal of earlier SLPs and whether SLPs against orders rejecting review are maintainable

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly concluded that the arbitral awards were perverse and patently illegal because the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract clauses was one that no reasonable person could have adopted (not even a possible view), and therefore the awards were susceptible to being set aside under Section 34 (as informed by Section 34(2A) for domestic awards); consequently the High Court properly dismissed the review petitions and this Court dismissed the SLPs.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • All the special leave petitions are dismissed
  • No order as to costs