- PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. The Board of Trustee of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin & others
Arbitrator cannot rewrite contract for parties-28 July 2021
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that an arbitral award which is based on no evidence and/or in ignorance of evidence would come under the realm of patent illegality. The Court also held that an arbitrator cannot rewrite the contract for the parties.
In 2012, an Arbitral Tribunal passed an award in favor of PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. directing amendment of the license agreement entered between the Parties to convert the royalty model into revenue sharing model.
A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award was presented by the Trust and the Court held that: “In this scenario, the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal, that there was a law when the Agreement was entered into between the parties, which provided royalty as a pass-through and that the said law has been changedfor the first time in 2003 and subsequently again changed in 2005, in our view, is a finding based on ‘noevidence‘. It was further held that ‘a unilateral addition or alteration of a contract has been foisted upon an unwilling party’ and that ‘a party to the Agreement cannot be made liable to perform something for which it has not entered into a contract and rewriting a contract for the parties would be breach of fundamental principles of justice.’
The Judgement can be accessed at:
- com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited
No appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator’s order made under Section 17(2) of the Act – 05 August 2021
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of e-commerce giant Amazon in its dispute with Future Retail Limited (FRL) over the latter’s merger deal with Reliance group. The court held that that Emergency Award passed by Singapore arbitrator stalling FRL-Reliance deal is enforceable in Indian law. The Court held that an award/order by an Emergency Arbitrator would be covered by Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and it can be enforced under the provisions of Section 17(2). It also held that no appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator’s order made under Section 17(2) of the Act.
The judgment can be accessed at: