Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the majority arbitral award for breaching natural justice and public policy, and upheld the minority award.

Summary

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) awarded a construction contract to Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., which included a price‑adjustment formula based on the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) old series. When the Ministry of Industrial Development stopped publishing the old series and introduced a new series, NHAI issued a circular introducing a linking factor to connect the two series, which Ssangyong contested. The three‑member arbitral tribunal, by majority, applied the circular and rejected Ssangyong’s claim, leading the company to file a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held that the majority award violated principles of natural justice and public policy because the government guidelines used to compute the linking factor were never disclosed to the parties and the unilateral circular could not bind the contractor without consent. Consequently, the majority award was set aside, the minority award was upheld, and the award amount with interest was ordered to be executed. The Court also clarified the prospective application of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 to Section 34 applications filed after 23‑10‑2015 and narrowed the scope of the "public policy of India" ground.

Issues considered

Whether the arbitral award applying the NHAI circular and linking factor can be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) for violation of natural justice.
Whether the award is in conflict with the "public policy of India" under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act.
Whether the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 applies prospectively to Section 34 applications filed on or after 23‑10‑2015.
Whether the unilateral circular amounts to a new contract without the contractor's consent, invoking Section 34(2)(a)(iv).
Whether the ground of patent illegality under the newly added Section 34(2A) is available in this case.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 18, s. 24(3), s. 26, s. 28(3), s. 34(2A), s. 34(2)(a)(iii), s. 34(2)(b)(ii)
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015s. Explanation 1 to s.34(2)(b)(ii), s. Explanation 2 to s.34(2)(b)(ii), s. s.34(2A)
Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961s. 7
New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration

Subjects

ArbitrationSection 34Public policy of IndiaNatural justicePrice adjustmentLinking factorPatent illegalityAmendment Act 2015Contract interpretationAward setting aside

Judgment

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R. 522 [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A SSANGYONG ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
v.
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI)
(Civil Appeal No. 4779 of 2019)
B MAY 08, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.34(2)(b)(ii),
34(2)(a)(iii) – Respondent invited bids for construction of a four-
lane bypass on National Highway 26 in the State of Madhya Pradesh
C
– Appellant’s bid was accepted – Price adjustment for four of the
components used in execution of the contract i.e. cement, steel, plant
and machinery, and other local materials was to be calculated as
per formula given in sub-clause 70.3 of the contract – Price
adjustment was being paid to the appellant by using the Wholesale
D Price Index (WPI) published by the Ministry of Industrial
Development, which followed the years 1993-94= 100 (Old Series)
– However, w.e.f 14.09.10, the Ministry stopped publishing the WPI
for the Old Series and started publishing indices under the WPI
series 2004-05= 100 (New Series) – As both the indices C1 and Co
were available to the appellant under the New Series for calculating
E
price adjustment, the appellant raised bills accordingly – On
15.02.13, the respondent issued a Policy Circular in which a new
formula for determining indices was used stating that the Circular
would be applied to the contract in question, as a result of which, a
linking factor would have to be provided by which the Old Series
F was connected to the New Series – Appellant challenged the Circular
– Eventually, the arbitral tribunal consisting of three members by
majority award held that the Circular could be applied as it was
within contractual stipulations – Petition u/s.34 filed by the appellant
– Rejected by the High Court – Appellant inter alia pleaded that
s.34(2)(b)(ii) was attracted as the award was in conflict with the
G
public policy of India and that s.34(2)(a)(iii) would also be attracted
as principles of natural justice were violated – Held: Government
guidelines that were referred to and relied upon by the majority
award to arrive at the linking factor were never in evidence before
the Tribunal – Tribunal relied upon the said guidelines by itself
H
522
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 523
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)

stating that they are to be found on a certain website – This being A
the case, the appellant would be directly affected, not being allowed
to comment on the applicability or interpretation of those guidelines
– Thus, majority award set aside u/s.34(2)(a)(iii) – Further, in order
to apply a linking factor, a Circular, unilaterally issued by one party,
cannot possibly bind the other party to the agreement without that
B
other party’s consent – Indeed, the Circular expressly stipulated
that it cannot apply unless the contractors furnish an undertaking/
affidavit that the price adjustment under the Circular is acceptable
to them – Appellant gave such undertaking only conditionally and
without prejudice to its argument that the Circular does not and
cannot apply – Majority award created a new contract for the parties C
by applying the said unilateral Circular and by substituting a
workable formula under the agreement by another formula de hors
the agreement – Thus, a fundamental principle of justice was
breached – Such a course of conduct would be contrary to
fundamental principles of justice as followed in this country and
D
shocks the conscience of the Court – However, this ground is
available only in very exceptional circumstances, as in the present
case – Judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of
the High Court, set aside – Consequently, the majority award is
also set aside – In order to do complete justice between the parties,
invoking power u/Art.142 of the Constitution of India, the minority E
award is upheld – This award, together with interest now be executed
between the parties – Foreign Awards (Recognition and
Enforcement) Act, 1961 – s.7 – Constitution of India – Art.142 –
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration –
Art.26.
F
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Setting aside
an arbitral award, in conflict with “public policy of India”– Law
post Amendment Act, 2015 – Held: “Public policy of India”, whether
contained in s.34 or s.48 of the 1996 Act would now mean the
“fundamental policy of Indian law” as explained in paragraphs 18
and 27 of Associate Builders case i.e. the fundamental policy of G
Indian law would be relegated to the “Renusagar” understanding
of this expression – Expansion of the phrase “public policy of
India”, made in Western Geco case has been done away with –
Western Geco as explained in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Associate
Builders, would no longer obtain, as under the guise of interfering H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A with an award on the ground that the arbitrator has not adopted a
judicial approach, the Court’s intervention would be on the merits
of the award, which cannot be permitted post amendment – However,
principles of natural justice, as contained in ss.18 and 34(2)(a)(iii)
of the 1996 Act continue to be grounds of challenge of an award,
as is contained in paragraph 30 of Associate Builders – Arbitration
B
and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 –
Applicability of – Held: Section 34, as amended, will apply only to
s.34 applications that have been made to the Court on or after
23.10.2015, irrespective of the fact that the arbitration proceedings
C may have commenced prior to that date – Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34.
Interpretation of Statutes – Amendment by way of clarification
– Retrospective or prospective – Held: Amendment made in
Explanations 1 and 2 to s.34(2)(b)(ii) have been made for the
D avoidance of any doubt – Even on principle, it is the substance of
the amendment that is to be looked at rather than the form –
Therefore, even in cases where, for avoidance of doubt, something
is clarified by way of an amendment, such clarification cannot be
retrospective if the earlier law has been changed substantively –
E Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Explanations 1 and 2 to
s.34(2)(b)(ii).
Words & expressions – “Public policy of India” – Meaning
of – Held: Public policy of India is now constricted to mean firstly,
that a domestic award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian
F law, as understood in paragraphs 18 and 27 of Associate Builders
case, or secondly, that such award is against basic notions of justice
or morality as understood in paragraphs 36 to 39 of Associate
Builders – Explanation 2 to s.34(2)(b)(ii) and Explanation 2 to
s.48(2)(b)(ii) was added by the Amendment Act only so that Western
Geco case, as understood in Associate Builders, and paragraphs
G 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with – Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 – Explanation 2 to s.34(2)(b)(ii) &
Explanation 2 to s.48(2)(b)(ii) – Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(2A) –”Patent
H illegality” – Held: Insofar as domestic awards made in India are
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 525
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)

concerned, an additional ground is now available u/sub-s.(2A), A
added to s.34 by the Amendment Act, 2015– There must be patent
illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such
illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount
to mere erroneous application of the law – If an arbitrator is alleged
to have wandered outside the contract and dealt with matters not
B
allotted to him, this would be a jurisdictional error which could be
corrected on the ground of “patent illegality”, which would not
apply to international commercial arbitrations that are decided under
Part II of the 1996 Act – A decision which is perverse, as understood
in paragraphs 31 and 32 of Associate Builders, while no longer
being a ground for challenge under “public policy of India”, would C
certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the
award – Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.28(3), 34(2A) –
Held: Change made in s.28(3) by the Amendment Act really follows
what is stated in paragraphs 42.3 to 45 in Associate Builders case, D
namely, that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily
for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the
contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person
would; that the arbitrator’s view is not even a possible view to take
– Also, if the arbitrator wanders outside the contract and deals
with matters not allotted to him, he commits an error of jurisdiction E
– This ground of challenge will now fall within the new ground
added u/s.34(2A) – Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act,
2015.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(2)(a)(iii) and
ss.18, 24(3), 26 – Held: ss.18, 24(3) and 26 are important pointers F
to what is contained in the ground of challenge mentioned in
s.34(2)(a)(iii) – Under s.34(2)(a)(iii), one of the grounds of
challenge of an arbitral award is that a party is unable to present
its case – Where materials are taken behind the back of the parties
by the Tribunal, on which the parties have had no opportunity to G
comment, the ground u/s.34(2)(a)(iii) would be made out.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(2)(a)(iv) –
”submission to arbitration”– Challenge to an arbitral award – Held:
Where an arbitral tribunal has rendered an award which decides
matters either beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A beyond the disputes referred to the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral
award could be said to have dealt with decisions on matters beyond
the scope of submission to arbitration – To bring in by the backdoor
grounds relatable to s.28(3) of the 1996 Act to be matters beyond
the scope of submission to arbitration u/s.34(2)(a)(iv) would not be
permissible as this ground must be construed narrowly and so
B
construed, must refer only to matters which are beyond the
arbitration agreement or beyond the reference to the arbitral
tribunal.
Words & expressions –”most basic notions of … justice”–
Meaning of – Held: Expression”most basic notions of … justice”
C finds mention in Explanation 1 to sub-clause (iii) to s.34(2)(b) –
Here, what is referred to is, substantively or procedurally, some
fundamental principle of justice which has been breached, and
which shocks the conscience of the Court – Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 – Explanation 1 to sub-clause (iii) to
D s.34(2)(b).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015

E 1.1 Since the Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 petition in the present case is dated 30.07.2016, an
important question as to the applicability of the parameters of
review of arbitral awards would arise in this case. More
particularly, radical changes have been made by the Arbitration
and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with effect from
F 23.10.2015– in particular, in the “public policy of India” ground
for challenge of arbitral awards. The question which arises is
whether the amendments made in Section 34 are applicable to
applications filed under Section 34 to set aside arbitral awards
made after 23.10.2015. The amendments made in Explanations
G 1 and 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) have been made for the avoidance
of any doubt, which language, however, is not found in Section
34(2A). Apart from the anomalous position which would arise if
the Section were to be applied piecemeal, namely, that
Explanations 1 and 2 were to have retrospective effect, being
only to remove doubts, whereas sub-section (2A) would have to
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 527
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)

apply prospectively as a new ground, with inbuilt exceptions, A
having been introduced for the first time, it is clear that even on
principle, it is the substance of the amendment that is to be looked
at rather than the form. Therefore, even in cases where, for
avoidance of doubt, something is clarified by way of an
amendment, such clarification cannot be retrospective if the
B
earlier law has been changed substantively. In the present case,
fundamental changes have been made in the law. The expansion
of “public policy of India” in ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003)
5 SCC 705 [“Saw Pipes”] and ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco
International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263 [“Western Geco”] has been
done away with, and a new ground of “patent illegality”, with inbuilt C
exceptions, has been introduced. Given this, it is declared that
Section 34, as amended, will apply only to Section 34 applications
that have been made to the Court on or after 23.10.2015,
irrespective of the fact that the arbitration proceedings may have
commenced prior to that date. [Paras 10-12] [542-A-C;
D
544-G-H; 545-A-B; F-H]
Changes made by the Amendment Act, 2015
1.2 Whether the ground of “public policy of India” is used
to set aside an award under Section 34, or to refuse recognition
and enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48, Section E
34(2)(b) ought to have been construed in the same manner as
Section 48(2)(b). This Court, in Saw Pipes, added yet another
ground, namely, that of “patent illegality” to the three grounds
mentioned in Renusagar in order to set aside an award under
Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Yet another expansion of the phrase
“public policy of India” contained in Section 34 of the 1996 Act F
was by another judgment of this Court in Western Geco, which
was explained in Associate Builders. [Paras 13, 15 and 17]
[548-C-D; 549-D]
1.3 The expression “public policy of India”, whether
contained in Section 34 or in Section 48, would now mean the G
“fundamental policy of Indian law” as explained in paragraphs 18
and 27 of Associate Builders, i.e., the fundamental policy of Indian
law would be relegated to the “Renusagar” understanding of this
expression. This would necessarily mean that the Western Geco
expansion has been done away with. In short, Western Geco, as H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A explained in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Associate Builders, would
no longer obtain, as under the guise of interfering with an award
on the ground that the arbitrator has not adopted a judicial
approach, the Court’s intervention would be on the merits of the
award, which cannot be permitted post amendment. However,
insofar as principles of natural justice are concerned, as contained
B
in Sections 18 and 34(2)(a)(iii) of the 1996 Act, these continue to
be grounds of challenge of an award, as is contained in paragraph
30 of Associate Builders. The ground for interference insofar as
it concerns “interest of India” has since been deleted, and
therefore, no longer obtains. Equally, the ground for interference
C on the basis that the award is in conflict with justice or morality is
now to be understood as a conflict with the “most basic notions
of morality or justice”. This again would be in line with paragraphs
36 to 39 of Associate Builders, as it is only such arbitral awards
that shock the conscience of the court that can be set aside on
this ground. Thus, it is clear that public policy of India is now
D
constricted to mean firstly, that a domestic award is contrary to
the fundamental policy of Indian law, as understood in paragraphs
18 and 27 of Associate Builders, or secondly, that such award is
against basic notions of justice or morality as understood in
paragraphs 36 to 39 of Associate Builders. Explanation 2 to
E Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Explanation 2 to Section 48(2)(b)(ii) was
added by the Amendment Act only so that Western Geco, as
understood in Associate Builders, and paragraphs 28 and 29 in
particular, is now done away with. [Paras 23-25] [567-B-H]
1.3 Insofar as domestic awards made in India are concerned,
F an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2A),
added by the Amendment Act, 2015, to Section 34. Here, there
must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which
refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which
does not amount to mere erroneous application of the law. In
short, what is not subsumed within “the fundamental policy of
G Indian law”, namely, the contravention of a statute not linked to
public policy or public interest, cannot be brought in by the
backdoor when it comes to setting aside an award on the ground
of patent illegality. Secondly, it is also made clear that re-

H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 529
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)

appreciation of evidence, which is what an appellate court is A
permitted to do, cannot be permitted under the ground of patent
illegality appearing on the face of the award. Paragraph 42.1 of
Associate Builders, namely, a mere contravention of the
substantive law of India, by itself, is no longer a ground available
to set aside an arbitral award. Paragraph 42.2 of Associate
B
Builders, however, would remain, for if an arbitrator gives no
reasons for an award and contravenes Section 31(3) of the 1996
Act, that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face
of the award. The change made in Section 28(3) by the Amendment
Act really follows what is stated in paragraphs 42.3 to 45 in
Associate Builders, namely, that the construction of the terms of C
a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the
arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair-minded
or reasonable person would; in short, that the arbitrator’s view
is not even a possible view to take. Also, if the arbitrator wanders
outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him,
D
he commits an error of jurisdiction. This ground of challenge will
now fall within the new ground added under Section 34(2A).
[Paras 26-29] [568-A-F]
1.4 A decision which is perverse, as understood in
paragraphs 31 and 32 of Associate Builders, while no longer being
a ground for challenge under “public policy of India”, would E
certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of
the award. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award
which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be
perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent
illegality. Additionally, a finding based on documents taken behind F
the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a
decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such decision is not
based on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also
have to be characterised as perverse. [Para 30] [568-G-H;
569-A]
G
The Ground of Challenge under Section 34(2)(a)(iii)
1.5 Under Section 34(2)(a)(iii), one of the grounds of
challenge of an arbitral award is that a party is unable to present
its case. In order to understand the import of Section 34(2)(a)(iii),
Section 18 of the 1996 Act should also be seen. Section 24(3) is a H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A verbatim reproduction of Article 24(3) of the UNCITRAL Model
Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Similarly, Section
26(1) and (2) is a verbatim reproduction of Article 26 of the
UNCITRAL Model Law. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 has been
added by the Indian Parliament in enacting the 1996 Act. Sections
18, 24(3), and 26 are important pointers to what is contained in
B
the ground of challenge mentioned in Section 34(2)(a)(iii). Under
Section 18, each party is to be given a full opportunity to present
its case. Under Section 24(3), all statements, documents, or other
information supplied by one party to the arbitral tribunal shall be
communicated to the other party, and any expert report or
C document on which the arbitral tribunal relies in making its
decision shall be communicated to the parties. Section 26 is an
important pointer to the fact that when an expert’s report is relied
upon by an arbitral tribunal, the said report, and all documents,
goods, or other property in the possession of the expert, with
which he was provided in order to prepare his report, must first
D
be made available to any party who requests for these things.
Secondly, once the report is arrived at, if requested, parties have
to be given an opportunity to put questions to him and to present
their own expert witnesses in order to testify on the points at
issue. [Paras 34-36] [575-D-E; 576-E-H; 577-A]
E 1.6 Under the rubric of a party being otherwise unable to
present its case, the standard textbooks on the subject have
stated that where materials are taken behind the back of the
parties by the Tribunal, on which the parties have had no
opportunity to comment, the ground under Section 34(2)(a)(iii)
F would be made out. [Para 37] [577-B]
The Ground of Challenge under Section 34(2)(a)(iv)
1.7 So far as this defence is concerned, standard textbooks
on the subject have held that the expression “submission to
arbitration” either refers to the arbitration agreement itself, or
G to disputes submitted to arbitration, and that so long as disputes
raised are within the ken of the arbitration agreement or the
disputes submitted to arbitration, they cannot be said to be
disputes which are either not contemplated by or which fall outside
the arbitration agreement. The expression “submission to
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 531
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)

arbitration” occurs in various provisions of the 1996 Act. Thus, A
under Section 28(1)(a), an arbitral tribunal “… shall decide the
dispute submitted to arbitration …”. Section 43(3) of the 1996
Act refers to “… an arbitration agreement to submit future
disputes to arbitration ….”. Also, it has been stated that where
matters, though not strictly in issue, are connected with matters
B
in issue, they would not readily be held to be matters that could
be considered to be outside or beyond the scope of submission
to arbitration. [Para 39] [581-E-H]
1.8 Where an arbitral tribunal has rendered an award which
decides matters either beyond the scope of the arbitration
agreement or beyond the disputes referred to the arbitral tribunal, C
as understood in Praveen Enterprises, the arbitral award could
be said to have dealt with decisions on matters beyond the scope
of submission to arbitration. In the guise of misinterpretation of
the contract, and consequent “errors of jurisdiction”, it is not
possible to state that the arbitral award would be beyond the D
scope of submission to arbitration if otherwise the aforesaid
misinterpretation (which would include going beyond the terms
of the contract), could be said to have been fairly comprehended
as “disputes” within the arbitration agreement, or which were
referred to the decision of the arbitrators as understood by the
authorities above. If an arbitrator is alleged to have wandered E
outside the contract and dealt with matters not allotted to him,
this would be a jurisdictional error which could be corrected on
the ground of “patent illegality”, which would not apply to
international commercial arbitrations that are decided under Part
II of the 1996 Act. To bring in by the backdoor grounds relatable F
to Section 28(3) of the 1996 Act to be matters beyond the scope
of submission to arbitration under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) would not
be permissible as this ground must be construed narrowly and
so construed, must refer only to matters which are beyond the
arbitration agreement or beyond the reference to the arbitral
tribunal. [Paras 42, 43] [598-H; 599-A-E] G

Most Basic Notions of Justice
1.9 The expression “most basic notions of … justice” finds
mention in Explanation 1 to sub-clause (iii) to Section 34(2)(b).
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A Here again, what is referred to is, substantively or procedurally,
some fundamental principle of justice which has been breached,
and which shocks the conscience of the Court. The government
guidelines that were referred to and strongly relied upon by the
majority award to arrive at the linking factor were never in
evidence before the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal relied upon
B
the said guidelines by itself and states that they are to be found
on a certain website. These guidelines were never, in fact,
disclosed in the arbitration proceedings. The appellant would be
directly affected as it would otherwise be unable to present its
case, not being allowed to comment on the applicability or
C interpretation of those guidelines. For example, the appellant
could have argued, without prejudice to the argument that linking
is de hors the contract, that of the three methods for linking the
New Series with the Old Series, either the second or the third
method would be preferable to the first method, which the majority
award has applied on its own. For this reason, the majority award
D
needs to be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(iii). [Paras 44-46]
[599-E-F; 604-B-F]
1.10 Insofar as the argument that a new contract had been
made by the majority award for the parties, without the consent
of the appellant, by applying a formula outside the agreement, as
E per the Circular dated 15.02.2013, which itself could not be
applied without the appellant’s consent, this ground under Section
34(2)(a)(iv) would not be available. The appellant argued before
the arbitral tribunal that a new contract was being made by applying
the formula outside what was prescribed, which was answered by
F the respondent, stating that it would not be possible to apply the
old formula without a linking factor which would have to be
introduced. Considering that the parties were at issue on this,
the dispute as to whether the linking factor applied, thanks to
the Circular dated 15.02.2013, is clearly something raised and
argued by the parties, and is certainly something which would fall
G within the arbitration clause or the reference to arbitration that
governs the parties. This being the case, this argument would
not obtain and Section 34(2)(a)(iv), as a result, would not be
attracted. However, when it comes to the public policy of India
argument based upon “most basic notions of justice”, it is clear
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 533
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)

that this ground can be attracted only in very exceptional A
circumstances when the conscience of the Court is shocked by
infraction of fundamental notions or principles of justice. The
formula that was applied by the agreement continued to be applied
till February, 2013 – in short, it is not correct to say that the
formula under the agreement could not be applied in view of the
B
Ministry’s change in the base indices from 1993-94 to 2004-05.
Further, in order to apply a linking factor, a Circular, unilaterally
issued by one party, cannot possibly bind the other party to the
agreement without that other party’s consent. Indeed, the
Circular itself expressly stipulates that it cannot apply unless the
contractors furnish an undertaking/affidavit that the price C
adjustment under the Circular is acceptable to them. The
appellant gave such undertaking only conditionally and without
prejudice to its argument that the Circular does not and cannot
apply. This being the case, it is clear that the majority award
created a new contract for the parties by applying the said
D
unilateral Circular and by substituting a workable formula under
the agreement by another formula de hors the agreement. This
being the case, a fundamental principle of justice has been
breached, namely, that a unilateral addition or alteration of a
contract can never be foisted upon an unwilling party, nor can a
party to the agreement be liable to perform a bargain not entered E
into with the other party. Clearly, such a course of conduct would
be contrary to fundamental principles of justice as followed in
this country, and shocks the conscience of this Court. However,
this ground is available only in very exceptional circumstances,
such as the fact situation in the present case. Under no
F
circumstance can any Court interfere with an arbitral award on
the ground that justice has not been done in the opinion of the
Court. That would be an entry into the merits of the dispute which
is contrary to the ethos of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The
judgments of the Single Judge and of the Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court are set aside. Consequently, the majority award G
is also set aside. Under the Scheme of Section 34 of the 1996
Act, the disputes that were decided by the majority award would
have to be referred afresh to another arbitration. This would cause
considerable delay and be contrary to one of the important
objectives of the 1996 Act, namely, speedy resolution of disputes
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A by the arbitral process under the Act. Therefore, in order to do
complete justice between the parties, invoking power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and given the fact that
there is a minority award which awards the appellant its claim
based upon the formula mentioned in the agreement between
the parties, the minority award, is upheld and it is this award,
B
together with interest, that will now be executed between the
parties. Given the reliefs claimed by the appellant in their
statement of claim before the learned arbitrators, what is awarded
to the appellant is the principal sum of INR 2,01,42,827/- towards
price adjustment payable under sub-clause 70.3 of the contract,
C for the work done under the contract from September 2010 to
May 2014, as well as interest at the rate of 10%, compounded
monthly from the due date of payment to the date of the award,
i.e., 02.05.2016, plus future interest at the rate of 12% per annum
(simple) till the date of payment. [Paras 47-49] [604-G-H;
605-A-H; 606-A-F]
D
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
(2015) 3 SCC 49 ; ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco
International Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 263 : [2014] 12 SCR 1
– explained.
E Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket
(P.) Ltd. and Ors., (2018) 6 SCC 287 : [2018] 2
SCR 829 ; Sedco Forex International Drill, Inc. and
Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Anr.,
(2005) 12 SCC 717 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 302 ; State
of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises, (2012) 12 SCC 581 :
F [2011] 10 SCR 1026 – relied on.
ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 : [2003]
3 SCR 691 ; Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General
Electric Co. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644 : [1993] 3 Suppl.
SCR 22 ; DDA v. R.S. Sharma and Co. (2008) 13 SCC
G 80 : [2008] 12 SCR 785 ; Minmetals Germany GmbH
v. Ferco Steel Ltd., [1999] CLC 647 ; CRW Joint
Operation v. PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero)
TBK, [2011] SGCA 33 ; Parsons & Whittemore
Overseas Co., Inc., v. Societe Generale De L’industrie
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 535
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)

Du Papier (RAKTA) 508 F.2d 969 ; Lesotho Highlands A
Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA and Ors. [2005]
3 All ER 789 [HL] ; Patrick Ryan & Ann Ryan and
Kevin O’Leary (Clonmel) Ltd. & General Motors, [2018]
IEHC 660 ; Dongwoo Mann+hummel Co. Ltd. v.
Mann+hummel Gmbh, [2008] SGHC 67 ; BAZ v. BBA
B
and Ors., [2018] SGHC 275 – referred to.
Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration by
Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides, Alan
Redfern, and Martin Hunter (Oxford University
Press, Fifth Ed., 2009) ; International Commercial
Arbitration by Gary B. Born (Wolters Kluwer, Second C
Ed., 2014) ; UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on
the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (2016
Ed.) ; UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration ; New York Convention on the D
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards – Commentary, edited by Dr. Reinmar Wolff
(C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos Publishing, 2012) ;
Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International
Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International,
1999) – referred to. E

Case Law Reference
[2018] 2 SCR 829 relied on Para 10
[2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 302 relied on Para 11
F
[2003] 3 SCR 691 referred to Para 12
[2014] 12 SCR 1 explained Para 12
(2015) 3 SCC 49 explained Para 13
[1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 22 referred to Para 13
G
[2008] 12 SCR 785 referred to Para 16
[2011] 10 SCR 1026 relied on Para 41

H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4779
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2017 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) COMM. No. 82 of 2016.
Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Navin Kumar, Ms. Rashmeet Kaur,
B Ms. Arpana Majumdar, Ashwani Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
S. Nandakumar, Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, P. Palanivelu, M. S.
Saran Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
C 2. The respondent, National Highways Authority of India
[“NHAI”], invited bids for construction of a four-lane bypass on National
Highway 26 in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant’s bid was
accepted vide its letter of acceptance dated 30.12.2005, for a total
contract value of INR 219,01,16,805/-. The appellant before us is a
D company registered under the laws of the Republic of Korea, whereas
the respondent is a Government of India undertaking, responsible for
construction of National Highways throughout the territory of India. The
components used in execution of work for which price adjustment was
payable to the appellant are labour, plant and machinery, petroleum, oil
and lubricant (POL), cement, steel, bitumen, and other local materials.
E Price adjustment for four of these components, i.e., cement, steel, plant
and machinery, and other local materials was agreed to be calculated as
per a formula given in sub-clause 70.3 of the contract. The relevant
portion of sub-clause 70.3 states as under:
“ii. Adjustment for Cement Component
F Price adjustment for increase or decrease in the cost of cement
procured by the contractor shall be paid in accordance with the
following formula:
Vc = 0.85 x Pc x Ri x (C1 - C0)
100 C0
G
Where,
Vc = increase or decrease in the cost of work during the
month under consideration due to change in rates of component.
C0 = the all India average wholesale price index for cement
H on the day 28 days prior to the closing date of submission of bids,
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 537
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

as published by Ministry of Industrial Development, Government A
of India, New Delhi.
C1 = the all India average wholesale price index for cement
on the day 28 days prior to the last day of the period to which a
particular interim payment certificate is related, as published by
Ministry of Industrial Development, Government of India, New B
Delhi.
Pc = percentage of Cement component.”
Insofar as the component C0 is concerned, the date which is 28
days prior to the last submission of bids is 29.09.2005, which is the base
date for calculation of price adjustment, since it is common ground that C
the date of submission of the bid is 27.10.2005.
3. The price adjustment was being paid to the appellant every
month in terms of the agreed formula under sub-clause 70.3 by using the
Wholesale Price Index [“WPI”] published by the Ministry of Industrial
Development, which followed the years 1993-94 = 100 [“Old Series”]. D
However, with effect from 14.09.2010, the Ministry of Industrial
Development stopped publishing the WPI for the Old Series and started
publishing indices under the WPI series 2004-05 = 100 [“New Series”].
It is important to note that even under this New Series, the WPIs for the
previous years beginning from April, 2005 were also being published by E
the Ministry. This being so, as both the indices C1 and Co were available
to the appellant under the New Series for calculating price adjustment,
the appellant raised its bills accordingly. It is undisputed that payments
of 90% of the monthly bills on this basis were made for the period
September, 2010 to February, 2013. On 15.02.2013, the respondent issued
a Policy Circular [“Circular”], in which a new formula for determining F
indices was used by applying a “linking factor” based on the year 2009-
10. However, this Circular expressly stated:
“Thus, payment on account of price adjustment may be made by
adopting the above process subject to the condition that the
contractors furnish undertaking / affidavit that this price adjustment G
is acceptable to them and they will not make any claim, whatsoever,
on this account in future after this payment.”
4. After this Circular, the respondent stated that the Circular would
have to be applied to the contract in question, as a result of which, a
linking factor would have to be provided by which the Old Series was H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A connected to the New Series. The appellant never accepted this and
knocked at the doors of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh through a
writ petition in which it challenged the validity of the Circular. However,
the High Court vide its order dated 03.04.2013 disposed of the writ
petition with the observation that there exists a dispute resolution
mechanism through the Dispute Adjudication Board, after which
B
arbitration is also provided, and as the appellant had an efficacious
alternative remedy, it was relegated to the same. The respondent then
asked the appellant to give its consent to receive monthly payment under
the Circular. The appellant submitted a conditional undertaking dated
17.05.2013, in which it was clearly stated:
C “The above undertaking is without prejudice to the Contractor’s
right to challenge the said Circular dated 15.02.2013 as per
provisions of contract and other legal remedies available to the
Contractor before the appropriate forum.”
5. The appellant then approached the Delhi High Court vide an
D application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
[“1996 Act”], for interim protection against deduction and recoveries
sought to be made by the respondent by applying the said Circular. The
Delhi High Court, by its order dated 31.05.2013, restrained the respondent
from implementing the said Circular retrospectively.
E 6. Meanwhile, the aforesaid dispute was referred to the Dispute
Adjudicating Board as envisaged under sub-clause 67 of the contract.
The Dispute Adjudicating Board, by its majority recommendation dated
31.10.2013, recommended a certain linking factor and then arrived at
the figures of price adjustment in the aforesaid four materials by applying
F such linking factor. However, one of the members of the Dispute
Adjudicating Board gave a dissenting note in favour of the appellant,
recommending that in view of the express terms of the contract, the
provisions contained in the impugned Circular cannot be applied for
calculation of price adjustment. Aggrieved by the recommendations of
the Dispute Adjudicating Board, the appellant issued a notice of
G dissatisfaction dated 19.11.2013, and referred the dispute to an arbitral
tribunal consisting of three members. The appellant raised a claim of
INR 2,01,42,827/- towards unpaid price adjustment for the period
September 2010 up to May 2014, plus INR 1,00,86,417/- for interest on
the aforesaid unpaid amount. The dispute that was thus referred to
H arbitration was a narrow one, namely, as to whether price adjustment
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 539
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

would continue under the terms of the contract, or whether the Circular A
dated 15.02.2013, applying the linking factor, would have to be applied.
Two out of three members of the arbitral tribunal, by their award dated
02.05.2016 made at New Delhi, after noting the arguments of both sides,
held that the Circular could be applied as it was within contractual
stipulations, as has been held by the Dispute Adjudicating Board, and
B
hence, rejected the appellant’s claim. While doing so, the majority award
applied certain government guidelines of the Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, as per which it was stated that the establishment of a linking
factor to connect the Old Series with the New Series is imperative, and
therefore, required. The appellant’s argument that the linking factor is
de hors the contract and not at all required was, therefore, rejected. C
The majority award further made it clear that these guidelines are
available on a certain website, as they were not on record. Paragraph
13 of the guidelines was then referred to, and applying the arithmetic
conversion method, which is one of the three methods referred to in the
said paragraph, a linking factor was applied in accordance with the
D
formula prescribed in the said method which is as follows:
“Arithmetic conversion method:
y = cx or c = y/x
Where y is average value of indices of 12 months for the Old
Series and x for the New Series; c being conversion factor. E
Meaning thereby that relation between y and x is linear. Average
of 12 months for x is taken 100.”
Thus, the final majority award, based on the aforesaid linking factor,
was as follows:
F
“9. Award
9.1. Based on the findings above, we hold that introducing linkage
factor is imperative and required for conversion of indices from
the base 2004-05 series to the earlier series base 1993-94 as basis
for determination of price adjustment. Linking factors for four
G
items of work/materials involved in price adjustment, shall be as
under:
Cement 1.528
Steel 2.365
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A Plant and Machinery 1.840
Other Materials 1.873
9.2. The final amount of price adjustment shall be worked out on
the basis of above-mentioned linkage factors. After deducting the
amount already paid to the Claimant, the amount payable to them
B against their claim shall be determined and the same shall be paid
by the Respondent to the Claimant.
9.3. This amount shall also attract interest @ 10% per annum
compounded monthly from due date of payment to the date of
award, viz. 02.05.2016.
C
9.4. Further interest @ 12% per annum, simple interest, shall be
payable to the Claimant from 02.05.2016 onwards till the date of
payments. No future interest however shall be payable in case
the amounts are paid within 90 days of the date of the award, that
is by 02.08.2016.”
D
A dissenting award was given by Shri Dilip Namdeo Potdukhe, in
which the learned dissenting arbitrator expressly stated that neither the
Circular nor the guidelines could be applied as they were de hors the
contract between the parties. Accordingly, the dissenting award awarded
the claim of the claimant-appellant in full.
E
7. A Section 34 petition which was filed by the appellant was
rejected by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, by a judgment
and order dated 09.08.2016, in which it was held that a possible view
was taken by the majority arbitrators which, therefore, could not be
interfered with, given the parameters of challenge to arbitral awards.
F The learned Single Judge also went on to hold that the New Series
published by the Ministry could be applied in the case of the appellant as
the base indices for 2004-05 under the New Series were available. Having
so held, the learned Single Judge stated that even though the view
expressed in the dissenting award is more appealing, and that he preferred
that view, yet he found that since the majority award is a possible view,
G
the scope of interference being limited, the Section 34 petition was
dismissed. A Section 37 appeal to the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court yielded the same result, by the impugned judgment dated
03.04.2017.

H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 541
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

8. Smt. Rashmeet Kaur, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of A
the appellant, first submitted that Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the 1996 Act
was attracted to the facts of the present case as the majority award
contained decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to
arbitration. The learned counsel argued that this was a jurisdictional error,
and a new contract was substituted by the majority award amounting to
B
a novation of the old agreement and the old formula contained in the
agreement, which would be a decision on a matter beyond the scope of
the submission to arbitration. She also argued that Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of
the 1996 Act would also be attracted as the award was in conflict with
the public policy of India, being contrary to the fundamental policy of
Indian law as well as the most basic notions of justice. According to her, C
the rewriting of the terms of the contract ought to shock the conscience
of the Court, as a new contract was foisted on one of the parties
unilaterally. For this, she cited various judgments. She also argued that
the principles of natural justice were violated and, therefore, Section
34(2)(a)(iii) would also be attracted. She argued that the government
D
guidelines were never produced before the arbitrators, and the arbitrators
applied the said guidelines behind the back of the parties, thus, resulting
in breach of Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the 1996 Act. Finally, though she
argued the ground of patent illegality, this argument was given up when
it was pointed out by the Court that this ground, which obtains under
Section 34(2A) of the 1996 Act, would not be available in the case of an E
international commercial arbitration that is decided in India. Shri Mukul
Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate, supplemented the submissions of Smt.
Rashmeet Kaur.
9. On the other hand, Shri S. Nandakumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent, argued that applying the new F
formula with the base index of 2004-05 would make the contract
unworkable, as a result of which, it was imperative to have a linking
factor. According to the learned counsel, the appellant itself applied a
linking factor when the Tribunal asked it to do so, may be without prejudice
to its other contentions. In any case, this was a matter of interpretation
of the agreement in which the arbitrators’ view is final, as has been G
correctly held by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. He
also cited some judgments in support of this proposition. According to
him, therefore, this appeal should be dismissed.

H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015
10. Since the Section 34 petition in the present case is dated
30.07.2016, an important question as to the applicability of the parameters
of review of arbitral awards would arise in this case. More particularly,
B radical changes have been made by the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015 [“Amendment Act, 2015”] with effect from
23.10.2015 – in particular, in the “public policy of India” ground for
challenge of arbitral awards. The question which arises is whether the
amendments made in Section 34 are applicable to applications filed under
Section 34 to set aside arbitral awards made after 23.10.2015. This Court,
C in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket (P.) Ltd.
and Ors., (2018) 6 SCC 287 [“BCCI”], has held that the Amendment
Act, 2015 would apply to Section 34 petitions that are made after this
date. Thus, this Court held:
“75. Shri Viswanathan then argued, relying upon R. Rajagopal
D Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan [R. Rajagopal Reddy v.
Padmini Chandrasekharan, (1995) 2 SCC 630], Fuerst Day
Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. [Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd.
v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 356], S EDCO Forex
International Drill Inc. v. CIT [SEDCO Forex International Drill
E Inc. v. CIT, (2005) 12 SCC 717] and Bank of Baroda v. Anita
Nandrajog [Bank of Baroda v. Anita Nandrajog, (2009) 9 SCC
462 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 689] , that a clarificatory amendment
can only be retrospective, if it does not substantively change the
law, but merely clarifies some doubt which has crept into the law.
For this purpose, he referred us to the amendments made in Section
F 34 by the Amendment Act and stated that despite the fact that
Explanations 1 and 2 to Section 34(2) stated that “for the avoidance
of any doubt, it is clarified”, this is not language that is conclusive
in nature, but it is open to the court to go into whether there is, in
fact, a substantive change that has been made from the earlier
G position or whether a doubt has merely been clarified. According
to the learned Senior Counsel, since fundamental changes have
been made, doing away with at least two judgments of this Court,
being Saw Pipes Ltd. [ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5
SCC 705] and Western Geco [ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco
International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12],
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 543
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

as has been held in para 18 in HRD Corpn. v. GAIL (India) A
Ltd. [HRD Corpn. v. GAIL (India) Ltd., (2018) 12 SCC 471], it
is clear that such amendments would only be prospective in nature.
We do not express any opinion on the aforesaid contention since
the amendments made to Section 34 are not directly before us. It
is enough to state that Section 26 of the Amendment Act makes it
B
clear that the Amendment Act, as a whole, is prospective in nature.
Thereafter, whether certain provisions are clarificatory, declaratory
or procedural and, therefore, retrospective, is a separate and
independent enquiry, which we are not required to undertake in
the facts of the present cases, except to the extent indicated above,
namely, the effect of the substituted Section 36 of the Amendment C
Act.”
xxx xxx xxx
“78. The Government will be well-advised in keeping the aforesaid
Statement of Objects and Reasons in the forefront, if it proposes
to enact Section 87 on the lines indicated in the Government’s D
Press Release dated 7-3-2018. The immediate effect of the
proposed Section 87 would be to put all the important amendments
made by the Amendment Act on a back-burner, such as the
important amendments made to Sections 28 and 34 in particular,
which, as has been stated by the Statement of Objects and E
Reasons,
“… have resulted in delay of disposal of arbitration proceedings
and increase in interference of courts in arbitration matters,
which tend to defeat the object of the Act”,
and will now not be applicable to Section 34 petitions filed after F
23-10-2015, but will be applicable to Section 34 petitions filed in
cases where arbitration proceedings have themselves commenced
only after 23-10-2015. This would mean that in all matters which
are in the pipeline, despite the fact that Section 34 proceedings
have been initiated only after 23-10-2015, yet, the old law would G
continue to apply resulting in delay of disposal of arbitration
proceedings by increased interference of courts, which ultimately
defeats the object of the 1996 Act. [These amendments have the
effect, as stated in HRD Corpn. v. GAIL (India) Ltd., (2018) 12
SCC 471 of limiting the grounds of challenge to awards as follows:
(SCC p. 493, para 18) H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A “18. In fact, the same Law Commission Report has amended
Sections 28 and 34 so as to narrow grounds of challenge
available under the Act. The judgment in ONGC Ltd. v. Saw
Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 has been expressly done away
with. So has the judgment in ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco
International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263. Both Sections 34 and
B
48 have been brought back to the position of law contained
in Renusagar Power Plant Co. Ltd. v. General Electric
Company, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644, where “public policy” will
now include only two of the three things set out therein viz.
“fundamental policy of Indian law” and “justice or morality”.
C The ground relating to “the interest of India” no longer obtains.
“Fundamental policy of Indian law” is now to be understood
as laid down in Renusagar, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644. “Justice
or morality” has been tightened and is now to be understood
as meaning only basic notions of justice and morality i.e. such
notions as would shock the conscience of the Court as
D
understood in Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 :
(2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204. Section 28(3) has also been amended
to bring it in line with the judgment of this Court in Associate
Builders, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204, making
it clear that the construction of the terms of the contract is
E primarily for the arbitrator to decide unless it is found that such
a construction is not a possible one.”]
It would be important to remember that the 246th Law Commission
Report has itself bifurcated proceedings into two parts, so that
the Amendment Act can apply to court proceedings commenced
F on or after 23-10-2015. It is this basic scheme which is adhered
to by Section 26 of the Amendment Act, which ought not to be
displaced as the very object of the enactment of the Amendment
Act would otherwise be defeated.”
(emphasis supplied)
G 11. There is no doubt that the amendments made in Explanations
1 and 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) have been made for the avoidance of any
doubt, which language, however, is not found in Section 34(2A). Apart
from the anomalous position which would arise if the Section were to be
applied piecemeal, namely, that Explanations 1 and 2 were to have
H retrospective effect, being only to remove doubts, whereas sub-section
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 545
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

(2A) would have to apply prospectively as a new ground, with inbuilt A
exceptions, having been introduced for the first time, it is clear that even
on principle, it is the substance of the amendment that is to be looked at
rather than the form. Therefore, even in cases where, for avoidance of
doubt, something is clarified by way of an amendment, such clarification
cannot be retrospective if the earlier law has been changed substantively.
B
Thus, in Sedco Forex International Drill, Inc. and Ors. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and Anr., (2005) 12 SCC
717 [“Sedco”], this Court held:
“17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10
SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] a cardinal principle of the tax law
is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant C
assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by
necessary implication. (See also Reliance Jute and Industries
Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67].) An
Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of
clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation D
can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia
Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598 : AIR 1981 SC
1274, 1282 para 24]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the
Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from
the time that the main provision came into force [See Shyam
Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan E
Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar
Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506]. But if it changes the
law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact
that the phrases used are “it is declared” or “for the removal of
doubts”.” F
12. There is no doubt that in the present case, fundamental changes
have been made in the law. The expansion of “public policy of India” in
ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 [“Saw Pipes”] and
ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263
[“Western Geco”] has been done away with, and a new ground of G
“patent illegality”, with inbuilt exceptions, has been introduced. Given
this, we declare that Section 34, as amended, will apply only to Section
34 applications that have been made to the Court on or after 23.10.2015,
irrespective of the fact that the arbitration proceedings may have
commenced prior to that date.
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A Changes made by the Amendment Act, 2015
13. It is first necessary to survey the law insofar as it relates to
the ground of setting aside an award if it is in conflict with the public
policy of India, as it existed before the Amendment Act, 2015. In
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC
B 49 [“Associate Builders”], this Court referred to the judgment in
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1)
SCC 644 [“Renusagar”], as follows:
“18. In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric
Co. [Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994
C Supp (1) SCC 644], the Supreme Court construed Section
7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement)
Act, 1961:
“7. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards.—(1) A
foreign award may not be enforced under this Act—
D xxx xxx xxx
(b) if the Court dealing with the case is satisfied that—
xxx xxx xxx
(ii) the enforcement of the award will be contrary to the
E public policy.”
In construing the expression “public policy” in the context of a
foreign award, the Court held that an award contrary to
(i) The fundamental policy of Indian law,

F (ii) The interest of India,
(iii) Justice or morality,
would be set aside on the ground that it would be contrary to
the public policy of India. It went on further to hold that a
contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange
G Regulation Act would be contrary to the public policy of India
in that the statute is enacted for the national economic interest
to ensure that the nation does not lose foreign exchange which
is essential for the economic survival of the nation (see SCC
p. 685, para 75). Equally, disregarding orders passed by the
superior courts in India could also be a contravention of the
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 547
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

fundamental policy of Indian law, but the recovery of compound A
interest on interest, being contrary to statute only, would not
contravene any fundamental policy of Indian law (see SCC
pp. 689 & 693, paras 85 & 95).”
To this statement of the law, this Court added that the binding
effect of the judgment of a superior court being disregarded B
would be equally violative of the fundamental policy of Indian Law [see
paragraph 27].
14. It is important to note that Sections 34(2)(b) and 48(2)(b) of
the 1996 Act, before their amendment in 2015, stated as follows:
“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.— C

xxx xxx xxx
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the court only if–
xxx xxx xxx
D
(b) The court finds that–
(i) The subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of
settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in
force, or
(ii) The arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of E
India.
Explanation.–Without prejudice to the generality of sub-
clause (ii) it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of any
doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of
India if the making of the award was induced or affected F
by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or
section 81.
xxx xxx xxx”
“48. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards.—
G
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the
Court finds that–
xxx xxx xxx
H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A (b) The enforcement of the award would be contrary to the
public policy of India.
Explanation.–Without prejudice to the generality of clause (b)
of this section, it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of any
doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of
B India if the making of the award was induced or affected by
fraud or corruption.
xxx xxx xxx”
It will thus be seen that whether the ground of “public policy of
India” is used to set aside an award under Section 34, or to refuse
C recognition and enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48, Section
34(2)(b) ought to have been construed in the same manner as Section
48(2)(b).
15. However, this Court, in Saw Pipes (supra), added yet another
ground, namely, that of “patent illegality” to the three grounds mentioned
D in Renusagar (supra) in order to set aside an award under Section 34
of the 1996 Act. This ground was added in the following terms:
“31. …… [Patent] Illegality must go to the root of the matter and
if the illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that award is
against the public policy. Award could also be set aside if it is so
E unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court.
Such award is opposed to public policy and is required to be
adjudged void.”
16. Given this interpretation of the law, insofar as Section 34 was
concerned, this Court, in DDA v. R.S. Sharma and Co., (2008) 13
F SCC 80, summarised the law as it stood at that point of time, as follows:
“21. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) An award, which is
(i) contrary to substantive provisions of law; or
G (ii) the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996; or
(iii) against the terms of the respective contract; or
(iv) patently illegal; or
H (v) prejudicial to the rights of the parties;
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 549
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

is open to interference by the court under Section 34(2) of the A
Act.
(b) The award could be set aside if it is contrary to:
(a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(b) the interest of India; or B
(c) justice or morality.
(c) The award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and
unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court.
(d) It is open to the court to consider whether the award is
C
against the specific terms of contract and if so, interfere with
it on the ground that it is patently illegal and opposed to the
public policy of India. ……”
17. Yet another expansion of the phrase “public policy of India”
contained in Section 34 of the 1996 Act was by another judgment of this
D
Court in Western Geco (supra), which was explained in Associate
Builders (supra) as follows:
“28. In a recent judgment, ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco
International Ltd. [(2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12],
this Court added three other distinct and fundamental juristic
principles which must be understood as a part and parcel of the E
fundamental policy of Indian law. The Court held: (SCC pp. 278-
80, paras 35 & 38-40)
“35. What then would constitute the ‘fundamental policy
of Indian law’ is the question. The decision in ONGC [(2003) 5
SCC 705 : AIR 2003 SC 2629] does not elaborate that aspect. F
Even so, the expression must, in our opinion, include all such
fundamental principles as providing a basis for administration
of justice and enforcement of law in this country. Without
meaning to exhaustively enumerate the purport of the
expression ‘fundamental policy of Indian law’, we may refer G
to three distinct and fundamental juristic principles that must
necessarily be understood as a part and parcel of the
fundamental policy of Indian law. The first and foremost is
the principle that in every determination whether by a court or
other authority that affects the rights of a citizen or leads to
H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A any civil consequences, the court or authority concerned is
bound to adopt what is in legal parlance called a ‘judicial
approach’ in the matter. The duty to adopt a judicial approach
arises from the very nature of the power exercised by the
court or the authority does not have to be separately or
additionally enjoined upon the fora concerned. What must be
B
remembered is that the importance of a judicial approach in
judicial and quasi-judicial determination lies in the fact that so
long as the court, tribunal or the authority exercising powers
that affect the rights or obligations of the parties before them
shows fidelity to judicial approach, they cannot act in an
C arbitrary, capricious or whimsical manner. Judicial approach
ensures that the authority acts bona fide and deals with the
subject in a fair, reasonable and objective manner and that its
decision is not actuated by any extraneous consideration.
Judicial approach in that sense acts as a check against flaws
and faults that can render the decision of a court, tribunal or
D
authority vulnerable to challenge.
xxx xxx xxx
38. Equally important and indeed fundamental to the policy
of Indian law is the principle that a court and so also a quasi-
E judicial authority must, while determining the rights and
obligations of parties before it, do so in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. Besides the celebrated audi alteram
partem rule one of the facets of the principles of natural justice
is that the court/authority deciding the matter must apply its
mind to the attendant facts and circumstances while taking a
F view one way or the other. Non-application of mind is a defect
that is fatal to any adjudication. Application of mind is best
demonstrated by disclosure of the mind and disclosure of mind
is best done by recording reasons in support of the decision
which the court or authority is taking. The requirement that an
G adjudicatory authority must apply its mind is, in that view, so
deeply embedded in our jurisprudence that it can be described
as a fundamental policy of Indian law.
39. No less important is the principle now recognised as a
salutary juristic fundamental in administrative law that a decision
H which is perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 551
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

would have arrived at the same will not be sustained in a court A
of law. Perversity or irrationality of decisions is tested on the
touchstone of Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture
Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947)
2 All ER 680 (CA)] principle of reasonableness. Decisions
that fall short of the standards of reasonableness are open to
B
challenge in a court of law often in writ jurisdiction of the
superior courts but no less in statutory processes wherever
the same are available.
40. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to attempt an
exhaustive enumeration of what would constitute the
fundamental policy of Indian law nor is it possible to place the C
expression in the straitjacket of a definition. What is important
in the context of the case at hand is that if on facts proved
before them the arbitrators fail to draw an inference which
ought to have been drawn or if they have drawn an inference
which is on the face of it, untenable resulting in miscarriage of D
justice, the adjudication even when made by an Arbitral Tribunal
that enjoys considerable latitude and play at the joints in making
awards will be open to challenge and may be cast away or
modified depending upon whether the offending part is or is
not severable from the rest.”
E
(emphasis in original)
29. It is clear that the juristic principle of a “judicial approach”
demands that a decision be fair, reasonable and objective. On the
obverse side, anything arbitrary and whimsical would obviously
not be a determination which would either be fair, reasonable or F
objective.
30. The audi alteram partem principle which undoubtedly is a
fundamental juristic principle in Indian law is also contained in
Sections 18 and 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act. These sections read as follows: G
“18. Equal treatment of parties.—The parties shall be treated
with equality and each party shall be given a full opportunity to
present his case.
xxx xxx xxx
H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A 34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.—
xxx xxx xxx
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the court only
if—
B (a) the party making the application furnishes proof
that—
xxx xxx xxx
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper
notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral
C proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his
case;”
31. The third juristic principle is that a decision which is
perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have
arrived at the same is important and requires some degree of
D explanation. It is settled law that where:
(i) a finding is based on no evidence, or
(ii) an Arbitral Tribunal takes into account something
irrelevant to the decision which it arrives at; or
E (iii)ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision,
such decision would necessarily be perverse.
32. A good working test of perversity is contained in two
judgments. In Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing
Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons [1992 Supp (2) SCC 312], it
F was held: (SCC p. 317, para 7)
“7. … It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived
at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking
into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so
outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of
G irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the
finding is rendered infirm in law.”
In Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 :
1999 SCC (L&S) 429], it was held: (SCC p. 14, para 10)

H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 553
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

“10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained A
between the decisions which are perverse and those which
are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence
which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person
would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there
is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which
B
could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be,
the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the
findings would not be interfered with.”
33. It must clearly be understood that when a court is applying
the “public policy” test to an arbitration award, it does not act
as a court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be C
corrected. A possible view by the arbitrator on facts has
necessarily to pass muster as the arbitrator is the ultimate
master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon
when he delivers his arbitral award. Thus, an award based on
little evidence or on evidence which does not measure up in D
quality to a trained legal mind would not be held to be invalid
on this score. Once it is found that the arbitrator’s approach is
not arbitrary or capricious, then he is the last word on facts. In
P.R. Shah, Shares & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. v. B.H.H.
Securities (P) Ltd. [(2012) 1 SCC 594 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ)
342], this Court held: (SCC pp. 601-02, para 21) E

“21. A court does not sit in appeal over the award of an
Arbitral Tribunal by reassessing or reappreciating the
evidence. An award can be challenged only under the
grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Act. The Arbitral
Tribunal has examined the facts and held that both the F
second respondent and the appellant are liable. The case
as put forward by the first respondent has been accepted.
Even the minority view was that the second respondent
was liable as claimed by the first respondent, but the appellant
was not liable only on the ground that the arbitrators G
appointed by the Stock Exchange under Bye-law 248, in a
claim against a non-member, had no jurisdiction to decide a
claim against another member. The finding of the majority
is that the appellant did the transaction in the name of the

H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A second respondent and is therefore, liable along with the
second respondent. Therefore, in the absence of any ground
under Section 34(2) of the Act, it is not possible to re-
examine the facts to find out whether a different decision
can be arrived at.”
B 34. It is with this very important caveat that the two fundamental
principles which form part of the fundamental policy of Indian
law (that the arbitrator must have a judicial approach and that
he must not act perversely) are to be understood.”
18. It is at this stage that certain fundamental changes were made
C in the law pursuant to the 246th Report of the Law Commission of India
[“Law Commission Report”] of August 2014. The Law Commission
Report first suggested an amendment to the Preamble of the 1996 Act
as follows:
“Amendment to the Preamble
D After the words aforesaid “Model Law and Rules” the following
be inserted:
“And WHEREAS it is further required to improve the
law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial
arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as also to
E define the law relating to conciliation, in order to provide a fair,
expeditious and cost-effective means of dispute resolution;”
[NOTE: This amendment is proposed in order to further
demonstrate and reaffirm the Act’s focus on achieving the
objectives of fairness, speed and economy in resolution of disputes
F through arbitration.]”
The Law Commission Report, when it came to setting aside of
domestic awards and recognition or enforcement of foreign awards,
prescribed certain changes to the 1996 Act as follows:
“SETTING ASIDE OF DOMESTIC AWARDS AND
G RECOGNITION / ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN
AWARDS
34. Once an arbitral award is made, an aggrieved party may apply
for the setting aside of such award. Section 34 of the Act deals
with setting aside a domestic award and a domestic award resulting
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 555
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

from an international commercial arbitration whereas section 48 A
deals with conditions for enforcement of foreign awards. As the
Act is currently drafted, the grounds for setting aside (under section
34) and conditions for refusal of enforcement (section 48) are in
pari materia. The Act, as it is presently drafted, therefore, treats
all three types of awards – purely domestic award (i.e. domestic
B
award not resulting from an international commercial arbitration),
domestic award in an international commercial arbitration and a
foreign award – as the same. The Commission believes that this
has caused some problems. The legitimacy of judicial intervention
in the case of a purely domestic award is far more than in cases
where a court is examining the correctness of a foreign award or C
a domestic award in an international commercial arbitration.
35. It is for this reason that the Commission has recommended
the addition of section 34 (2A) to deal with purely domestic awards,
which may also be set aside by the Court if the Court finds that
such award is vitiated by “patent illegality appearing on the face D
of the award.” In order to provide a balance and to avoid excessive
intervention, it is clarified in the proposed proviso to the proposed
section 34 (2A) that such “an award shall not be set aside merely
on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-
appreciating evidence.” The Commission believes that this will
go a long way to assuage the fears of the judiciary as well as the E
other users of arbitration law who expect, and given the
circumstances prevalent in our country, legitimately so, greater
redress against purely domestic awards. This would also do away
with the unintended consequences of the decision of the Supreme
Court in ONGC vs. Saw Pipes Ltd, (2003) 5 SCC 705, which, F
although in the context of a purely domestic award, had the
unfortunate effect of being extended to apply equally to both
awards arising out of international commercial arbitrations as well
as foreign awards, given the statutory language of the Act. The
amendment to section 28(3) has similarly been proposed solely in
order to remove the basis for the decision of the Supreme Court G
in ONGC vs. Saw Pipes Ltd, (2003) 5 SCC 705 – and in order
that any contravention of a term of the contract by the tribunal
should not ipso jure result in rendering the award becoming
capable of being set aside. The Commission believes no similar
H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A amendment is necessary to section 28 (1) given the express
restriction of the public policy ground.
36. Although the Supreme Court has held in Shri Lal Mahal v
Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2 SCC 433, that the expansive
construction accorded to the term “public policy” in Saw Pipes
B cannot apply to the use of the same term “public policy of India”
in section 48(2)(b), the recommendations of the Commission go
even further and are intended to ensure that the legitimacy of
court intervention to address patent illegalities in purely domestic
awards is directly recognised by the addition of section 34 (2A)
and not indirectly by according an expansive definition to the phrase
C “public policy”.
37. In this context, the Commission has further recommended
the restriction of the scope of “public policy” in both sections 34
and 48. This is to bring the definition in line with the definition
propounded by the Supreme Court in Renusagar Power Plant
D Co Ltd v General Electric Co, AIR 1994 SC 860 where the
Supreme Court while construing the term “public policy” in section
7(1)(b)(ii) of Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act,
1961 held that an award would be contrary to public policy if such
enforcement would be contrary to “(i) fundamental policy of Indian
E law; or (ii) the interests of India; or (iii) justice or morality”. The
formulation proposed by the Commission is even tighter and does
not include the reference to “interests of India”, which is vague
and is capable of interpretational misuse, especially in the context
of challenge to awards arising out of international commercial
arbitrations (under S 34) or foreign awards (under S 48). Under
F the formulation of the Commission, an award can be set aside on
public policy grounds only if it is opposed to the “fundamental
policy of Indian law” or it is in conflict with “most basic notions of
morality or justice”.”
(emphasis supplied)
G
19. Consequently, changes were suggested in Sections 28, 34,
and 48 of the 1996 Act. The amendment to Section 28 was prescribed in
the following terms:
“Amendment of Section 28
H 16. In section 28,
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 557
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

xxx xxx xxx A
(ii) In sub-section (3), after the words “tribunal shall decide”
delete the words “in accordance with” and add the words
“having regard to”
[Note: This amendment is intended to overrule the effect
of ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705, B
where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any
contravention of the terms of the contract would resu
in the award falling foul of Section 28 and consequently
being against public policy.]”
Similarly, amendment of Section 34 was prescribed as follows: C

“Amendment of Section 34
18. In section 34,
(i) In sub-section (1), after the words “sub-section (2)” add
the words “, subsection (2A)”. D
(ii) In sub-section (2), after the word “Explanation.—” delete
the words “Without prejudice to the generality of sub-clause
(ii), it is hereby declared, for” and add the word “For” and
after the words “the avoidance of any doubt,” add the words
“it is clarified” and after the words “public policy of India” E
add the word “only” and after the word “if” delete the
word “-” and add the word “:” and add the sub-clause “(a)”
before the words “the making of the award was induced or
affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of
section 75 or section 81” and add the word “; or” after the
F
words “violation of section 75 or section 81” and add sub
clause “(b) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy
of Indian law; or” and add sub-clause “(c) it is in conflict
with the most basic notions of morality or justice.”
[NOTE: The proposed Explanation II is required to bring
the standard for setting aside an award in conformity with G
the decision of the Supreme Court in Renusagar Power
Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644
and Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2
SCC 433, for awards in both domestic as well as
international commercial arbitrations. Ground (c) reflects H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A an internationally recognized formulation. Such a formulation
further tightens the Renusagar test and ensures that
“morality or justice” – terms used in Renusagar – cannot
be used to widen the test.]
(iii) After the Explanation in sub-section (2), insert sub-section
B “(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other
than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set
aside by the Court if the Court finds that the award is vitiated
by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely
C on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by
re-appreciating evidence.”
[NOTE: The proposed S 34(2A) provides an additional,
albeit carefully limited, ground for setting aside an award
arising out of a domestic arbitration (and not an international
D commercial arbitration). The scope of review is based on
the patent illegality standard set out by the Supreme Court
in ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705. The
proviso creates exceptions for erroneous application of the
law and re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be the
basis for setting aside awards.]
E
xxx xxx xxx”
So far as Section 48 is concerned, an amendment was proposed as
follows:
“Amendment of Section 48
F
22. In section 48,
(i) In sub-section (2), in the “Explanation.—”, delete the words
“Without prejudice to the generality of clause (b), it is hereby
declared, for” and add the word “For” and after the words
“avoidance of any doubt,” add the words “it is clarified” and
G after the words “the public policy of India” add the word
“only” and after the word “if” delete “-” and “;” and insert
sub-clause “(a)” before the words “the making of the award”
and delete “.” And add “;” after the words “by fraud or
corruption” and add sub-clauses “(b) it is in contravention
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 559
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

with the fundamental policy of Indian law; (c) it is in conflict A
with India’s most basic notions of morality or justice.”
xxx xxx xxx”
20. After Western Geco (supra) was delivered by this Court, a
Supplementary Report of February 2015 [“Supplementary Report”]
was made by the Law Commission of India, in which the Law Commission B
stated:
“10. The 246th Report of the Law Commission and the
decision in Western Geco.
10.1. The Law Commission, in the 246th Report, provided for the C
same narrow standard, namely that a mere violation of law of
India would not be a violation of ‘public policy’ in cases of
international commercial arbitrations held in India. It
suggested substantial amendments to Section 34 of the Act, with
an endeavour to ensure that the Renusagar position applies to all
foreign awards and all awards passed in international commercial D
arbitrations. With respect to domestic arbitrations, the Commission
recommended that the “patent illegality” test be retained, although
it be construed more narrowly than under the Saw Pipes regime.
In this regard, the following provisions were added to Section
34(2)(b)(ii) and a new provision, Section 34(2A) was introduced. E
These provisions are stated as follows:
S. 34(2)(b)(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public
policy of India.
Explanation.—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified
that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India only F
if:
(a) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud
or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81;
(b) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian
law; or G

(c) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or
justice.
(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than
international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A the Court if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent
illegality appearing on the face of the award.
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the
ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-
appreciating evidence.
B 10.2. The above amendments were suggested on the assumption
that other terms such as “fundamental policy of Indian law” or
conflict with “most basic notions of morality or justice” would not
be widely construed.
10.3. However, a month after the submission of the 246th Report
C in August 2014, the term “fundamental policy of India” was
construed widely by a three-judge bench of Supreme Court in
ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC
263 in September to include an award that “no reasonable person
would have arrived at”. This permitted the review of an arbitral
D award on merits on the basis of it violating public policy. The
Supreme Court’s decision was followed by a subsequent two-
judge bench in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development
Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 dated 25.11.2014. In the words of
Supreme Court in Western Geco:

E 35. What then would constitute the “fundamental policy of
Indian law” is the question. The decision in ONGC [ONGC
Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705] does not elaborate
that aspect. Even so, the expression must, in our opinion, include
all such fundamental principles as providing a basis for
administration of justice and enforcement of law in this country.
F Without meaning to exhaustively enumerate the purport of the
expression “fundamental policy of Indian law”, we may refer
to three distinct and fundamental juristic principles that must
necessarily be understood as a part and parcel of the
fundamental policy of Indian law. The first and foremost is the
G principle that in every determination whether by a court or
other authority that affects the rights of a citizen or leads to
any civil consequences, the court or authority concerned is
bound to adopt what is in legal parlance called a “judicial
approach” in the matter. The duty to adopt a judicial approach
arises from the very nature of the power exercised by the
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 561
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

court or the authority does not have to be separately or A
additionally enjoined upon the fora concerned. What must be
remembered is that the importance of a judicial approach in
judicial and quasi-judicial determination lies in the fact that so
long as the court, tribunal or the authority exercising powers
that affect the rights or obligations of the parties before them
B
shows fidelity to judicial approach, they cannot act in an
arbitrary, capricious or whimsical manner. Judicial approach
ensures that the authority acts bona fide and deals with the
subject in a fair, reasonable and objective manner and that its
decision is not actuated by any extraneous consideration.
Judicial approach in that sense acts as a check against flaws C
and faults that can render the decision of a court, tribunal or
authority vulnerable to challenge.
38. Equally important and indeed fundamental to the policy of
Indian law is the principle that a court and so also a quasi-
judicial authority must, while determining the rights and D
obligations of parties before it, do so in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. Besides the celebrated audi alteram
partem rule one of the facets of the principles of natural justice
is that the court/authority deciding the matter must apply its
mind to the attendant facts and circumstances while taking a
view one way or the other. Non-application of mind is a defect E
that is fatal to any adjudication. Application of mind is best
demonstrated by disclosure of the mind and disclosure of mind
is best done by recording reasons in support of the decision
which the court or authority is taking. The requirement that an
adjudicatory authority must apply its mind is, in that view, so F
deeply embedded in our jurisprudence that it can be described
as a fundamental policy of Indian law.
39. No less important is the principle now recognised as a
salutary juristic fundamental in administrative law that a
decision which is perverse or so irrational that no G
reasonable person would have arrived at the same will
not be sustained in a court of law. Perversity or irrationality
of decisions is tested on the touchstone of Wednesbury principle
[Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury
Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223, (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] of
H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A reasonableness. Decisions that fall short of the standards of
reasonableness are open to challenge in a court of law often in
writ jurisdiction of the superior courts but no less in statutory
processes wherever the same are available.
40. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to attempt an
B exhaustive enumeration of what would constitute the
fundamental policy of Indian law nor is it possible to place the
expression in the straitjacket of a definition. What is important
in the context of the case at hand is that if on facts proved
before them the arbitrators fail to draw an inference which
ought to have been drawn or if they have drawn an inference
C which is on the face of it, untenable resulting in miscarriage of
justice, the adjudication even when made by an Arbitral Tribunal
that enjoys considerable latitude and play at the joints in making
awards will be open to challenge and may be cast away or
modified depending upon whether the offending part is or is
D not severable from the rest.
(emphasis in original)
Therefore, among others, the Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness has now been incorporated into the public policy
test under Section 34, as it is deemed to be part of “fundamental
E policy of Indian law.”
10.4. Such a power to review an award on merits is contrary to
the object of the Act and international practice. As stated in the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1996 Act itself, one of
the principal objects of that law was “minimization of judicial
F intervention” [The 1996 Act, Statement of Objects and Reasons,
paragraph 4(v)].
(emphasis supplied)
10.5. As the Supreme Court’s judgment in Western Geco (supra)
would expand the Court’s power rather than minimise it, and given
G
that it is also contrary to international practice, a clarification needs
to be incorporated to ensure that the term “fundamental policy of
Indian law” is narrowly construed. If not, all the amendments
suggested by the Law Commission in relation to construction of
the term “public policy” will be rendered nugatory, as the
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 563
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

applicability of Wednesbury principles to public policy will certainly A
open the floodgates.
10.6. This will have four major deleterious effect, being (a) a
further erosion of faith in arbitration proceedings amongst
individuals and businesses in India and abroad; (b) a reduction in
popularity of India as a destination for international and domestic B
commercial arbitration; (c) increased investor concern, amongst
domestic and foreign investors, about the efficacy and speed of
dispute resolution and potential for judicial interference; and, (d)
an incidental increase in judicial backlog. In this regard, the
following amendment to the draft is suggested, by inserting
Explanation 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act: C

“For the avoidance of doubt the test as to whether there is a
contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall
not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.”
21. Pursuant to the Law Commission Report, the 1996 Act was D
amended by the Amendment Act, 2015 with effect from 23.10.2015.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Bill, 2015 is set out as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
2. The Act was enacted to provide for speedy disposal of cases E
relating to arbitration with least court intervention. With the passage
of time, some difficulties in the applicability of the Act have been
noticed. Interpretation of the provisions of the Act by courts in
some cases have resulted in delay of disposal of arbitration
proceedings and increase in interference of courts in arbitration F
matters, which tend to defeat the object of the Act. With a view
to overcome the difficulties, the matter was referred to the Law
Commission of India, which examined the issue in detail and
submitted its 176th Report. On the basis of the said Report, the
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2003 was
introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 22-12-2003. The said Bill was G
referred to the Department-related Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice for
examination and report. The said Committee, submitted its Report
to Parliament on 4-8-2005, wherein the Committee recommended
that since many provisions of the said Bill were contentious, the
H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A Bill may be withdrawn and a fresh legislation may be brought
after considering its recommendations. Accordingly, the said Bill
was withdrawn from the Rajya Sabha.
3. On a reference made again in pursuance of the above, the
Law Commission examined and submitted its 246th Report on
B “Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996” in
August, 2014 and recommended various amendments in the Act.
The proposed amendments to the Act would facilitate and
encourage Alternative Dispute Mechanism, especially arbitration,
for settlement of disputes in a more user-friendly, cost effective
and expeditious disposal of cases since India is committed to
C improve its legal framework to obviate in disposal of cases.
4. As India has been ranked at 178 out of 189 nations in the world
in contract enforcement, it is high time that urgent steps are taken
to facilitate quick enforcement of contracts, easy recovery of
monetary claims and award of just compensation for damages
D suffered and reduce the pendency of cases in courts and hasten
the process of dispute resolution through arbitration, so as to
encourage investment and economic activity.
5. As Parliament was not in session and immediate steps were
required to be taken to make necessary amendments to the
E Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to attract foreign investment
by projecting India as an investor friendly country having a sound
legal framework, the President was pleased to promulgate the
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
xxx xxx xxx”
F
(emphasis supplied)
22. Section 28(3), before the Amendment Act, read as follows:
“28. Rules applicable to substance of dispute.—
xxx xxx xxx
G
(3) In all cases, the arbitral tribunal shall decide in accordance
with the terms of the contract and shall take into account the
usages of the trade applicable to the transaction.”

H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 565
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

Section 28(3), after amendment, reads as follows: A
“28. Rules applicable to substance of dispute.—
xxx xxx xxx
(3) While deciding and making an award, the arbitral tribunal shall,
in all cases, take into account the terms of the contract and trade B
usages applicable to the transaction.”
Section 34(2)(b)(ii), after amendment, reads as follows:
“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.—
xxx xxx xxx
C
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if—
xxx xxx xxx
(b) the Court finds that—
xxx xxx xxx D
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of
India.
Explanation 1.—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is
clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy
of India, only if,— E
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by
fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or
Section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of
F
Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality
or justice.
Explanation 2.—For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to
whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy G
of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the
dispute.
xxx xxx xxx”
Sub-section (2A) of Section 34 was also added, which reads as
follows: H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A “34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.—
xxx xxx xxx
(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than
international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by
the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent
B illegality appearing on the face of the award:
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the
ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation
of evidence.

C xxx xxx xxx”
Correspondingly, Section 48 was also amended to bring the
unamended Section 48 in line with the amendments made in Section 34,
except that sub-section (2A) of Section 34 is missing in Section 48 as
the said Section deals with recognition and enforcement of foreign awards.
D Section 48, post amendment, reads as follows:
“48. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards.—
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the
Court finds that—
E
xxx xxx xxx
(b) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the
public policy of India.
Explanation 1.—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified
F that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only
if,—
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by
fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or
Section 81; or
G
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of
Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality
or justice.
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 567
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

Explanation 2.—For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to A
whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy
of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the
dispute.
xxx xxx xxx”
23. What is clear, therefore, is that the expression “public policy B
of India”, whether contained in Section 34 or in Section 48, would now
mean the “fundamental policy of Indian law” as explained in paragraphs
18 and 27 of Associate Builders (supra), i.e., the fundamental policy
of Indian law would be relegated to the “Renusagar” understanding of
this expression. This would necessarily mean that the Western Geco C
(supra) expansion has been done away with. In short, Western Geco
(supra), as explained in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Associate Builders
(supra), would no longer obtain, as under the guise of interfering with an
award on the ground that the arbitrator has not adopted a judicial approach,
the Court’s intervention would be on the merits of the award, which
cannot be permitted post amendment. However, insofar as principles of D
natural justice are concerned, as contained in Sections 18 and 34(2)(a)(iii)
of the 1996 Act, these continue to be grounds of challenge of an award,
as is contained in paragraph 30 of Associate Builders (supra).
24. It is important to notice that the ground for interference insofar
as it concerns “interest of India” has since been deleted, and therefore, E
no longer obtains. Equally, the ground for interference on the basis that
the award is in conflict with justice or morality is now to be understood
as a conflict with the “most basic notions of morality or justice”. This
again would be in line with paragraphs 36 to 39 of Associate Builders
(supra), as it is only such arbitral awards that shock the conscience of F
the court that can be set aside on this ground.
25. Thus, it is clear that public policy of India is now constricted to
mean firstly, that a domestic award is contrary to the fundamental policy
of Indian law, as understood in paragraphs 18 and 27 of Associate
Builders (supra), or secondly, that such award is against basic notions G
of justice or morality as understood in paragraphs 36 to 39 of Associate
Builders (supra). Explanation 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Explanation
2 to Section 48(2)(b)(ii) was added by the Amendment Act only so that
Western Geco (supra), as understood in Associate Builders (supra),
and paragraphs 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with.
H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A 26. Insofar as domestic awards made in India are concerned, an
additional ground is now available under sub-section (2A), added by the
Amendment Act, 2015, to Section 34. Here, there must be patent illegality
appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as
goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount to mere
erroneous application of the law. In short, what is not subsumed within
B
“the fundamental policy of Indian law”, namely, the contravention of a
statute not linked to public policy or public interest, cannot be brought in
by the backdoor when it comes to setting aside an award on the ground
of patent illegality.
27. Secondly, it is also made clear that re-appreciation of evidence,
C which is what an appellate court is permitted to do, cannot be permitted
under the ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.
28. To elucidate, paragraph 42.1 of Associate Builders (supra),
namely, a mere contravention of the substantive law of India, by itself, is
no longer a ground available to set aside an arbitral award. Paragraph
D 42.2 of Associate Builders (supra), however, would remain, for if an
arbitrator gives no reasons for an award and contravenes Section 31(3)
of the 1996 Act, that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the
face of the award.
29. The change made in Section 28(3) by the Amendment Act
E really follows what is stated in paragraphs 42.3 to 45 in Associate
Builders (supra), namely, that the construction of the terms of a contract
is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the
contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in
short, that the arbitrator’s view is not even a possible view to take. Also,
F if the arbitrator wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not
allotted to him, he commits an error of jurisdiction. This ground of challenge
will now fall within the new ground added under Section 34(2A).
30. What is important to note is that a decision which is perverse,
as understood in paragraphs 31 and 32 of Associate Builders (supra),
G while no longer being a ground for challenge under “public policy of
India”, would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the
face of the award. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an
award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be
perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.
Additionally, a finding based on documents taken behind the back of the
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 569
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no A
evidence inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led by the
parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse.
31. Given the fact that the amended Act will now apply, and that
the “patent illegality” ground for setting aside arbitral awards in
international commercial arbitrations will not apply, it is necessary to B
advert to the grounds contained in Section 34(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) as
applicable to the facts of the present case.
Section 34(2)(a) Does Not Entail a Challenge to an Arbitral Award
on Merits
32. Section 34(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) state as under: C

“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.—
xxx xxx xxx
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if—
D
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that—
xxx xxx xxx
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper
notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral
proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; E
or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated
by or not falling within the terms of the submission to
arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the
scope of the submission to arbitration: F
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to
arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted,
only that part of the arbitral award which contains
decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be
set aside; or G
xxx xxx xxx”
33. In Renusagar (supra), this Court dealt with a challenge to a
foreign award under Section 7 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and
Enforcement) Act, 1961 [“Foreign Awards Act”]. The Foreign Awards
H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A Act has since been repealed by the 1996 Act. However, considering
that Section 7 of the Foreign Awards Act contained grounds which were
borrowed from Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 [“New York
Convention”], which is almost in the same terms as Sections 34 and 48
of the 1996 Act, the said judgment is of great importance in understanding
B
the parameters of judicial review when it comes to either foreign awards
or international commercial arbitrations being held in India, the grounds
for challenge/refusal of enforcement under Sections 34 and 48,
respectively, being the same. After referring to the New York Convention,
this Court delineated the scope of enquiry of grounds under Sections 34/
C 48 (equivalent to the grounds under Section 7 of the Foreign Awards
Act, which was considered by the Court), and held:
“34. Under the Geneva Convention of 1927, in order to obtain
recognition or enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the
requirements of clauses (a) to (e) of Article I had to be fulfilled
D and in Article II, it was prescribed that even if the conditions laid
down in Article I were fulfilled recognition and enforcement of
the award would be refused if the Court was satisfied in respect
of matters mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c). The principles
which apply to recognition and enforcement of foreign awards
are in substance, similar to those adopted by the English courts at
E common law. (See: Dicey & Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 11th
Edn., Vol. I, p. 578). It was, however, felt that the Geneva
Convention suffered from certain defects which hampered the
speedy settlement of disputes through arbitration. The New York
Convention seeks to remedy the said defects by providing for a
F much more simple and effective method of obtaining recognition
and enforcement of foreign awards. Under the New York
Convention the party against whom the award is sought to be
enforced can object to recognition and enforcement of the foreign
award on grounds set out in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of
Article V and the court can, on its own motion, refuse recognition
G and enforcement of a foreign award for two additional reasons
set out in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of Article V. None
of the grounds set out in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) and
sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of Article V postulates a
challenge to the award on merits.
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 571
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

35. Albert Jan van den Berg in his treatise The New York A
Arbitration Convention of 1958 : Towards a Uniform Judicial
Interpretation, has expressed the view:
“It is a generally accepted interpretation of the Convention
that the court before which the enforcement of the foreign
award is sought may not review the merits of the award. The B
main reason is that the exhaustive list of grounds for refusal of
enforcement enumerated in Article V does not include a
mistake in fact or law by the arbitrator. Furthermore, under
the Convention the task of the enforcement judge is a limited
one. The control exercised by him is limited to verifying whether
an objection of a respondent on the basis of the grounds for C
refusal of Article V(1) is justified and whether the enforcement
of the award would violate the public policy of the law of his
country. This limitation must be seen in the light of the principle
of international commercial arbitration that a national court
should not interfere with the substance of the arbitration.” (p. D
269)
36. Similarly Alan Redfern and Martin Hunter have said:
“The New York Convention does not permit any review on the
merits of an award to which the Convention applies and, in this
respect, therefore, differs from the provisions of some systems E
of national law governing the challenge of an award, where an
appeal to the courts on points of law may be permitted.”
(Redfern & Hunter, Law and Practice of International
Commercial Arbitration, 2nd Edn., p. 461.)
37. In our opinion, therefore, in proceedings for enforcement of a F
foreign award under the Foreign Awards Act, 1961, the scope of
enquiry before the court in which award is sought to be enforced
is limited to grounds mentioned in Section 7 of the Act and does
not enable a party to the said proceedings to impeach the award
on merits. G
xxx xxx xxx
65. This would imply that the defence of public policy which is
permissible under Section 7(1)(b)(ii) should be construed narrowly.
In this context, it would also be of relevance to mention that under
H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A Article I(e) of the Geneva Convention Act of 1927, it is permissible
to raise objection to the enforcement of arbitral award on the
ground that the recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary
to the public policy or to the principles of the law of the country in
which it is sought to be relied upon. To the same effect is the
provision in Section 7(1) of the Protocol & Convention Act of
B
1837 which requires that the enforcement of the foreign award
must not be contrary to the public policy or the law of India. Since
the expression “public policy” covers the field not covered by the
words “and the law of India” which follow the said expression,
contravention of law alone will not attract the bar of public policy
C and something more than contravention of law is required.
66. Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention of 1958 and
Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act do not postulate
refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign award on the
ground that it is contrary to the law of the country of enforcement
D and the ground of challenge is confined to the recognition and
enforcement being contrary to the public policy of the country in
which the award is set to be enforced. There is nothing to indicate
that the expression “public policy” in Article V(2)(b) of the New
York Convention and Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards
Act is not used in the same sense in which it was used in Article
E I(c) of the Geneva Convention of 1927 and Section 7(1) of the
Protocol and Convention Act of 1937. This would mean that
“public policy” in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) has been used in a narrower
sense and in order to attract the bar of public policy the
enforcement of the award must invoke something more than the
F violation of the law of India. Since the Foreign Awards Act is
concerned with recognition and enforcement of foreign awards
which are governed by the principles of private international law,
the expression “public policy” in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign
Awards Act must necessarily be construed in the sense the
doctrine of public policy is applied in the field of private international
G law. Applying the said criteria, it must be held that the enforcement
of a foreign award would be refused on the ground that it is
contrary to public policy if such enforcement would be contrary
to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law; or (ii) the interests of
India; or (iii) justice or morality.”
H (emphasis supplied)
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 573
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

This judgment was cited with approval in Redfern and Hunter A
on International Arbitration by Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides,
Alan Redfern, and Martin Hunter (Oxford University Press, Fifth Ed.,
2009) [“Redfern and Hunter”] as follows:
“11.56. First, the New York Convention does not permit any
review on the merits of an award to which the Convention applies. B
[This statement, which was made in an earlier edition of this book,
has since been cited with approval by the Supreme Court of India
in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. The court
added that in its opinion ‘the scope of enquiry before the court in
which the award is sought to be enforced is limited [to the grounds
mentioned in the Act] and does not enable a party to the said C
proceedings to impeach the Award on merits’]. Nor does the Model
Law.”
The same theme is echoed in standard textbooks on international
arbitration. Thus, in International Commercial Arbitration by Gary B.
Born (Wolters Kluwer, Second Ed., 2014) [“Gary Born”], the learned D
author deals with this aspect of the matter as follows:
“[12] No Judicial Review of Merits of Foreign or Non-
Domestic Awards in Recognition Actions
It is an almost sacrosanct principle of international arbitration E
that courts will not review the substance of arbitrators’ decisions
contained in foreign or nondomestic arbitral awards in recognition
proceedings. Virtually every authority acknowledges this rule and
virtually nobody suggests that this principle should be abandoned.
When national courts do review the merits of awards, they labour
to categorize their action as an application of public policy, excess F
of authority, or some other Article V exception, rather than
purporting to justify a review of the merits.
[a] No Judicial Review of Awards Under New York and Inter-
American Conventions
G
Neither the New York Convention nor the Inter-American
Convention contains any exception permitting non-enforcement
of an award simply because the arbitrators got their decision on
the substance of the parties’ dispute wrong, or even badly wrong.
This is reasonably clear from the language of the Convention,
H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A which makes no reference to the possibility of a review of the
merits in Article V’s exhaustive list of the exclusive grounds for
denying recognition of foreign and nondomestic awards. There is
also no hint in the New York Convention’s drafting history of any
authority to reconsider the merits of an arbitral award in recognition
proceedings.
B
Likewise, the prohibition against review of the merits of the
arbitrator’s decision is one of the most fundamental pillars of
national court authority interpreting the Convention. This prohibition
has repeatedly and uniformly been affirmed by national courts, in
both common law and civil law jurisdictions. Simply put: “the court
C may not refuse to enforce an arbitral award solely on the ground
that the arbitrator may have made a mistake of law or fact”
[Karaha Bodas Co. LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan
Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274, 287-88 (5th Cir.
2004)]. Thus, in the words of the Luxembourg Supreme Court
D [Judgment of 24 November 1993, XXI Y.B. Comm. Arb. 617,
623 (Luxembourg Cour Supérieure de Justice) (1996)]:
“The New York Convention does not provide for any control
on the manner in which the arbitrators decide on the merits,
with as the only reservation, the respect of international public
E policy. Even if blatant, a mistake of fact or law, if made by the
arbitral tribunal, is not a ground for refusal of enforcement of
the tribunal’s award.”
Or, as a Brazilian recognition decision under the Convention
held [Judgment of 19 August 2009, Atecs Mannesmann GmbH
F v. Rodrimar S/A Transportes Equipamentos Industriais e
Armazes Gerais, XXXV Y.B. Comm. Arb. 330, 331 (Brazilian
Tribunal de Justiça) (2010)]:
“these questions pertain to the merits of the arbitral award
that, according to precedents from the Federal Supreme Court
G and of this Superior Court of Justice, cannot be reviewed by
this Court since recognition and enforcement of a foreign award
is limited to an analysis of the formal requirements of the
award.”

H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 575
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

Commentators have uniformly adopted the same view of the A
Convention [See, for e.g., K.-H. Böckstiegel, S. Kröll & P.
Nacimiento, Arbitration in Germany 452 (2007)].”
(at pp. 3707-3710)
(emphasis supplied)
B
Likewise, the UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention
on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New
York, 1958) (2016 Ed.) [“UNCITRAL Guide on the New York
Convention”] also states:
“9. The grounds for refusal under article V do not include an C
erroneous decision in law or in fact by the arbitral tribunal. A
court seized with an application for recognition and enforcement
under the Convention may not review the merits of the arbitral
tribunal’s decision. This principle is unanimously confirmed in the
case law and commentary on the New York Convention.”
D
The Ground of Challenge under Section 34(2)(a)(iii)
34. Under Section 34(2)(a)(iii), one of the grounds of challenge of
an arbitral award is that a party is unable to present its case. In order to
understand the import of Section 34(2)(a)(iii), Section 18 of the 1996
Act should also be seen. Section 18 reads as follows:
E
“18. Equal treatment of parties.—The parties shall be treated
with equality and each party shall be given a full opportunity to
present his case.”
(emphasis supplied)
Section 24(3) also states as follows: F

“24. Hearings and written proceedings.—
xxx xxx xxx
(3) All statements, documents or other information supplied to, or
applications made to the arbitral tribunal by one party shall be G
communicated to the other party, and any expert report or
evidentiary document on which the arbitral tribunal may rely in
making its decision shall be communicated to the parties.”

H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A Section 26 of the 1996 Act is also important and states as follows:
“26. Expert appointed by arbitral tribunal.—(1) Unless
otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may—
(a) appoint one or more experts to report to it on specific issues
to be determined by the arbitral tribunal; and
B
(b) require a party to give the expert any relevant information
or to produce, or to provide access to, any relevant documents,
goods or other property for his inspection.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if a party so requests
C or if the arbitral tribunal considers it necessary, the expert shall,
after delivery of his written or oral report, participate in an oral
hearing where the parties have the opportunity to put questions to
him and to present expert witnesses in order to testify on the
points at issue.

D (3) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the expert shall, on
the request of a party, make available to that party for examination
all documents, goods or other property in the possession of the
expert with which he was provided in order to prepare his report.”
35. Section 24(3) is a verbatim reproduction of Article 24(3) of
the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
E
[“UNCITRAL Model Law”]. Similarly, Section 26(1) and (2) is a
verbatim reproduction of Article 26 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Sub-section (3) of Section 26 has been added by the Indian Parliament
in enacting the 1996 Act.
36. Sections 18, 24(3), and 26 are important pointers to what is
F
contained in the ground of challenge mentioned in Section 34(2)(a)(iii).
Under Section 18, each party is to be given a full opportunity to present
its case. Under Section 24(3), all statements, documents, or other
information supplied by one party to the arbitral tribunal shall be
communicated to the other party, and any expert report or document on
G which the arbitral tribunal relies in making its decision shall be
communicated to the parties. Section 26 is an important pointer to the
fact that when an expert’s report is relied upon by an arbitral tribunal,
the said report, and all documents, goods, or other property in the
possession of the expert, with which he was provided in order to prepare
his report, must first be made available to any party who requests for
H these things. Secondly, once the report is arrived at, if requested, parties
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 577
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

have to be given an opportunity to put questions to him and to present A
their own expert witnesses in order to testify on the points at issue.
37. Under the rubric of a party being otherwise unable to present
its case, the standard textbooks on the subject have stated that where
materials are taken behind the back of the parties by the Tribunal, on
which the parties have had no opportunity to comment, the ground under B
Section 34(2)(a)(iii) would be made out. In New York Convention on
the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards –
Commentary, edited by Dr. Reinmar Wolff (C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos
Publishing, 2012), it is stated:
“4. Right to Comment C
According to the principle of due process, the tribunal must grant
the parties an opportunity to comment on all factual and legal
circumstances that may be relevant to the arbitrators’ decision-
making.
a) Right to Comment on Evidence and Arguments D
Submitted by the Other Party
As part of their right to comment, the parties must be
given an opportunity to opine on the evidence and arguments
introduced in the proceedings by the other party. The right to
comment on the counterparty’s submissions is regarded as a E
fundamental tenet of adversarial proceedings. However, in
accordance with the general requirement of causality, the denial
of an opportunity to comment on a particular piece of evidence or
argument is not prejudicial, unless the tribunal relied on this piece
of evidence or argument in making its decision. F
In order to ensure that the parties can exercise their right to
comment effectively, the arbitral tribunal must grant them access
to the evidence and arguments submitted by the other side.
Affording a party the opportunity to make submissions or to give
its view without also informing it of the opposing side’s claims and
G
arguments typically constitutes a violation of due process, unless
specific non-disclosure rules apply (e.g., such disclosure would
constitute a violation of trade secrets or applicable legal privileges).
In practice, national courts have afforded arbitral tribunals
considerable leeway in setting and adjusting the procedures
by which parties respond to one another’s submissions and H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A evidence, reasoning that there were “several ways of conducting
arbitral proceedings.” Accordingly, absent any specific agreement
by the parties, the arbitral tribunal has wide discretion in arranging
the parties’ right to comment, permitting or excluding the
introduction of new claims, and determining which party may have
the final word.
B
b) Right to Comment on Evidence Known to or Determined
by the Tribunal
The parties’ right to comment also extends to facts that
have not been introduced in the proceedings by the parties, but
C that the tribunal has raised sua sponte, provided it was entitled to
do so. For instance, if the tribunal gained “out of court
knowledge” of circumstances (e.g., through its own
investigations), it may only rest its decision on those circumstances
if it informed both parties in advance and afforded them the
opportunity to comment thereon. The same rule applies to cases
D where an arbitrator intends to base the award on his or her own
expert knowledge, unless the arbitrator was appointed for his
or her special expertise or knowledge (e.g., in quality arbitration).
Similarly, a tribunal must give the parties an opportunity to comment
on facts of common knowledge if it intends to base its decision
E on those facts, unless the parties should have known that those
facts could be decisive for the final award.”
(emphasis in original)
In Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial
Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 1999) [“Fouchard”] it is stated:
F
“In some rare cases, recognition or enforcement of an award
has been refused on the grounds of a breach of due process. One
example is the award made in a quality arbitration where the
defendant was never informed of the identity of the arbitrators
hearing the dispute [Danish buyer v German (F.R.) seller, IV
G Y.B. Comm. Arb. 258 (1979) (Oberlandesgericht Cologne)]. It
also occurred in a case where various documents were submitted
by one party to the arbitral tribunal but not to the other party
[G.W.I. Kersten & Co. B.V. v. Société Commerciale Raoul Duval
et Co., XIX Y.B. Comm. Arb. 708 (Amsterdam Court of Appeals)
(1992)], in another case where the defendant was not given the
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 579
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

opportunity to comment on the report produced by the expert A
appointed by the tribunal [Paklito Inv. Ltd. v. Klockner East
Asia Ltd., XIX Y.B. Comm. Arb. 664, 671 (Supreme Court of
Hong Kong) (1994)], and again where the arbitral tribunal criticized
a party for having employed a method of presenting evidence
which the tribunal itself had suggested [Iran Aircraft Indus. v
B
Avco Corp., 980 F.2d 141 (2nd Cir. 1992)].”
(at p. 987)
Gary Born (supra) states:
“German courts have adopted similar reasoning, holding that the
right to be heard entails two related sets of rights: (a) a party is C
entitled to present its position on disputed issues of fact and law,
to be informed about the position of the other parties and to a
decision based on evidence or materials known to the parties [See,
e.g., Judgment of 5 July 2011, 34 SCH 09/11, II(5)(c)(bb)
(Oberlandesgericht Munchen)]; and (b) a party is entitled to a D
decision by the arbitral tribunal that takes its position into account
insofar as relevant [See, e.g., Judgment of 5 October 2009, 34
Sch 12/09 (Oberlandesgericht Munchen)]. Other authorities
provide comparable formulations of the content of the right to be
heard [See, e.g., Slaney v. Int’l Amateur Athletic Foundation,
244 F.3d 580, 592 (7th Cir. 2001)].” E

(at p. 3225)
Similarly, in Redfern and Hunter (supra):
“11.73. The national court at the place of enforcement thus has a
limited role. Its function is not to decide whether or not the award F
is correct, as a matter of fact and law. Its function is simply to
decide whether there has been a fair hearing. One mistake in the
course of the proceedings may be sufficient to lead the court to
conclude that there was a denial of justice. For example, in a case
to which reference has already been made, a US corporation,
G
which had been told that there was no need to submit detailed
invoices, had its claim rejected by the Iran-US Claims Tribunal,
for failure to submit detailed invoices! The US court, rightly it is
suggested, refused to enforce the award against the US company
[Iran Aircraft Ind v Avco Corp. 980 F.2d. 141 (2nd Cir. 1992)].
In different circumstances, a German court held that an award H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A that was motivated by arguments that had not been raised by the
parties or the tribunal during the arbitral proceedings, and thus on
which the parties had not had an opportunity to comment, violated
due process and the right to be heard [See the decision of the
Stuttgart Court of Appeal dated 6 October 2001 referred to in
Liebscher, The Healthy Award, Challenge in International
B
Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer law International, 2003), 406].
Similarly, in Kanoria v Guinness, [2006] EWCA Civ. 222, the
English Court of Appeal decided that the respondent had not been
afforded the chance to present its case when critical legal
arguments were made by the claimant at the hearing, which the
C respondent could not attend due to a serious illness. In the
circumstances, the court decided that ‘this is an extreme case of
potential injustice’ and resolved not to enforce the arbitral award.
11.74. Examples of unsuccessful ‘due process’ defences to
enforcement are, however, more numerous. In Minmetals
D Germany v Ferco Steel, [1999] CLC 647, the losing respondent
in an arbitration in China opposed enforcement in England on the
grounds that the award was founded on evidence that the arbitral
tribunal had obtained through its own investigation. An English
court rejected this defence on the basis that the respondent was
eventually given an opportunity to ask for the disclosure of evidence
E at issue and comment on it, but declined to do so. The court held
that the due process defence to enforcement was not intended to
accommodate circumstances in which a party had failed to take
advantage of an opportunity duly accorded to it.”
38. In Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel Ltd., [1999]
F CLC 647, the Queen’s Bench Division referred to this ground under the
New York Convention, and held as follows:
“The inability to present a case issue
Although many of those states who are parties to the New York
G Convention are civil law jurisdictions or are those which like China
derive the whole or part of their procedural rules from the civil
law and therefore have essentially an inquisitorial system, art. V
of the Convention protects the requirements of natural justice
reflected in the audi alteram partem rule. Therefore, where the
tribunal is procedurally entitled to conduct its own investigations
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 581
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

into the facts, the effect of this provision will be to avoid A
enforcement of an award based on findings of fact derived from
such investigations if the enforcee has not been given any
reasonable opportunity to present its case in relation to the results
of such investigations. Article 26 of the CIETAC rules by
reference to which the parties had agreed to arbitrate provided:
B
‘Article 26 – The parties shall give evidence for the facts on
which their claim or defence is based. The arbitration tribunal
may, if it deems it necessary, make investigations and collect
evidence on its own initiative.’
That, however, was not treated by the Beijing court as permitting C
the tribunal to reach its conclusions and make an award without
first disclosing to both parties the materials which it had derived
from its own investigations. That quite distinctly appears from the
grounds of the court’s decision – that Ferco was, for reasons for
which it was not responsible, unable ‘to state its view’. Those
reasons could only have been its lack of prior access to the sub- D
sale award and the evidence which underlay it. I conclude that it
was to give Ferco’s lawyer an opportunity to refute this material
that the Beijing court ordered a ‘resumed’ arbitration.”
(at pp. 656-657)
E
The Ground of Challenge under Section 34(2)(a)(iv)
39. So far as this defence is concerned, standard textbooks on the
subject have held that the expression “submission to arbitration” either
refers to the arbitration agreement itself, or to disputes submitted to
arbitration, and that so long as disputes raised are within the ken of the F
arbitration agreement or the disputes submitted to arbitration, they cannot
be said to be disputes which are either not contemplated by or which fall
outside the arbitration agreement. The expression “submission to
arbitration” occurs in various provisions of the 1996 Act. Thus, under
Section 28(1)(a), an arbitral tribunal “… shall decide the dispute submitted
to arbitration …”. Section 43(3) of the 1996 Act refers to “… an arbitration G
agreement to submit future disputes to arbitration ….”. Also, it has been
stated that where matters, though not strictly in issue, are connected
with matters in issue, they would not readily be held to be matters that
could be considered to be outside or beyond the scope of submission to
arbitration. Thus, in Fouchard (supra), it is stated:
H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A “This provision applies where the arbitrators have gone beyond
the terms of the arbitration agreement. It complements Article V,
paragraph 1(a), which concerns invalid arbitration agreements.
The two grounds are similar in nature: in both cases, the arbitrator
will have ruled in the absence of an arbitration agreement, either
because the agreement is void (as in subsection (a)) or because it
B
does not cover the subject-matter on which the arbitrator reached
a decision (as in subsection (c)). For that reason, more recent
arbitration statutes often either treat the two grounds as one, as in
Article 1502 1o of the French New Code of Civil Procedure, or
refer generally to the “absence of a valid arbitration agreement,”
C as in Article 1065 of the Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure.
However, Article V, paragraph 1(c) does not cover all the cases
listed in Article 1502 3 o of the French New Code of Civil
Procedure, which provides that recognition or enforcement can
be refused where “the arbitrator ruled without complying with the
D mission conferred upon him or her.” That extends to decisions
that are either infra petita and ultra petita, as well as to situations
where the arbitrators have exceeded their powers in the
examination of the merits of the case (for example, by acting as
amiable compositeurs when that was not agreed by the parties,
or by failing to apply the rules of law chosen by the parties).
E Generally speaking, such situations cannot be said to be outside
the terms of the arbitration agreement within the meaning of the
New York Convention. In practice, it is only where the terms of
reference – which, provided that they have been accepted by the
parties, can constitute a form of arbitration agreement – set out
F the parties’ claims in detail that arbitrators who have decided issues
other than those raised in such claims can be said both to have
ruled ultra petita and to have exceeded the terms of the arbitration
agreement. If, on the other hand, the arbitration agreement is
drafted in general terms and the claims are not presented in a
way that contractually determines the issues to be resolved by
G the arbitrators, a decision that is rendered ultra petita would not
contravene Article V, paragraph 1(c).
It is important to note that the Convention provides that the
refusal of recognition or enforcement can be confined to aspects
of the award which fail to comply with the terms of the arbitration
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 583
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

agreement, provided that those aspects can be separated from A
the rest of the award (Art. V(1)(c)).
Once again, the courts have taken a very restrictive view of
the application of this ground.”
(at p. 988)
B
Similarly, Gary Born (supra) states:
“There are a number of recurrent grounds for claiming that
an arbitral tribunal has exceeded its authority. These generally
involve claims of either extra petita (the tribunal went beyond
the limits of its authority) or infra petita (the tribunal failed to C
fulfil its mandate by not exercising authority it was granted).
[a] Awards Ruling on Matters Outside Scope of Parties’
Submissions
Article 34(2)(a)(iii) permits annulment of awards where
the arbitrators “rule (d) on issues not presented to [them] by the D
parties” – so-called “extra petita” or “ultra petita” [Allen v.
Hounga [2012] EWCA Civ 609 (English Ct. App.)] As with other
grounds for annulment, most courts are reluctant to accept claims
that the arbitrators exceeded the scope of the parties’ submissions
[See, e.g., Stark v. Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, PC,
E
381 F.3d 793, 800 (8th Cir. 2004)].
One of the clearest examples of an excess of authority
under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) and parallel provisions of other national
arbitration legislation is a tribunal’s award of relief that neither
party requested. A French appellate decision explained the rationale
F
for these limits on the arbitrators’ authority (which, in this respect,
are more rigorous under French law than some other national
arbitration regimes) as follows [Judgment of 30 June 2005, Pilliod
v. Econosto, 2006 Rev. arb. 687, 688 (Paris Cour d’appel)]:
“The fact that the contract was governed by French law does
not allow the arbitrators to award interest pursuant to Art.1153 G
(1) of the Civil Code on the sole ground that this is permitted
under that provision, even in the absence of a request of the
parties. There is a difference between the role of a state court
and that of an arbitrator, whose jurisdiction is based on the
parties’ consent and who must therefore preserve the H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A consensual character of the proceedings by consulting the
parties on their intention as to the mission of the tribunal.”
Similarly, another court annulled an award on the grounds
that the relief ordered by the tribunal “exceeded the arbitrators’
powers because it was not sought by either party, and was
B completely irrational because it wrote material terms of the contract
out of existence” [PMA Capital Inc. Co. v. Platinum
Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd., 400 F. Appx. 654 (3d Cir. 2010)].
Nonetheless, an award will not be subject to annulment
where the arbitrators grant relief that, while different from what
C a party requested, is subsumed within relief that the party requested
(most obviously, a lower quantum of damages than that requested
by the claimant). More generally, courts also accord arbitrators
substantial discretion in fashioning remedies, including granting
relief that neither party has expressly requested [See, e.g., Harper
Ins. Ltd. v. Century Indem. Co., 819 F. Supp. 2d 270, 277
D (S.D.N.Y 2011)]. Although categorical rules are impossible to
formulate, the decisive issue appears to be whether the relief
granted by the arbitrators was subsumed within or reasonably
related to that requested by the parties.
Another example of an excess of authority under Article
E 34(2)(a)(iii) and parallel provisions of other arbitration statues
involves awards deciding issues or disputes that the parties have
not submitted to the arbitral tribunal [See, e.g., Emilio v. Sprint
Spectrum LP, 2013 WL 203361 (2d Cir.)]. A tribunal exceeds its
authority by ruling on an issue not presented by the parties in the
F arbitration even if the issue or dispute that it addresses is within
the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement. As one court
explained: “Arbitrators have the authority to decide only those
issues actually submitted by the parties” [AGCO Corp. v. Anglin,
216 F.3d 589, 593 (7th Cir. 2000)].

G Doubts about the scope of the parties’ submissions are
resolved in most legal systems in favour of encompassing matters
decided by the arbitrators. Put differently, a considerable measure
of judicial deference is accorded to the arbitrators’ interpretation
of the scope of their mandate under the parties’ submissions [See,
e.g., Downer v. Siegel, 489 F.3d 623, 627 (5th Cir. 2007)]. In the
H words of one court, “[w]e will not over-scrutinize the panel’s
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 585
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

language and leap to the conclusion that it exceeded its power in A
formulating the award” [Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. BCS
Ins. Co., 239 F. Supp. 2d 812,817 (N.D. III. 2003)].
Some annulment courts have adopted unduly formalistic
approaches to the question whether a particular issue or argument
was submitted to the tribunal. For example, one recent Singaporean B
decision held that issues not raised in the parties’ “pleadings” had
not been submitted to the tribunal, notwithstanding the fact that
these issues had been raised in argument during the arbitration
[See PT Prima Int’l Dev. v. Kempinski Hotels SA, [2012] SGCA
35]. The better view is not to look to local rules of civil procedure
or litigation practices in determining whether an issue was presented C
to the arbitrators; the proper inquiry is instead a pragmatic one
into whether the parties and tribunal had an opportunity to consider
and submit evidence and argument on a particular issue.”
(at pp. 3289-3293)
D
(emphasis supplied)
Redfern and Hunter (supra) states as follows:
“11.77. The first part of this ground for refusal of enforcement
under the Convention (and under the Model Law) envisages a
situation in which the arbitral tribunal is alleged to have acted in E
excess of its authority, ie ultra petita, and to have dealt with a
dispute that was not submitted to it. According to a leading
authority on the Convention, the courts almost invariably reject
this defence [See Albert Jan van den Berg, ‘Court Decisions on
the New York Convention’, Swiss Arbitration Association F
Conference, February 1996, Collected Reports, 86]. By way of
example, the German courts have rejected ultra petita defences
raised in complaint of an arbitral tribunal’s application of lex
mercatoria, [see the decision of the regional court of Hamburg
of 18 September 1997, (2000) XXV Y.B. Comm. Arb. 710] and
an arbitral tribunal’s award of more interest than was claimed G
[see the decision of the Court of Appeal of Hamburg of 30 July
1998, (2000) XXV Y.B. Comm. Arb. 714]. A further robust
rejection of such a defence comes from the US Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, in a case in which it was pleaded that
the arbitral tribunal had awarded a considerable sum of damages
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A for consequential loss, when the contract between the parties
clearly excluded this head of damage [Libyan American Oil
Company (Liamco) v Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Yamahirya,
(1982) VII Y.B. Comm. Arb. 382]. The court stated that, without
an in-depth review of the law of contract, the court could not
state whether a breach of contract would abrogate a clause which
B
excluded consequential damages. However, ‘the standard of
review of an arbitration award by an American Court is extremely
narrow’, and (adopting the words of the US Court of Appeals in
the well-known case of Parsons Whittemore Overseas Co Inc
v Societe Generale de l’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d
C 969 (2nd Cir. 1974)) the Convention did not sanction ‘second-
guessing the arbitrators’ construction of the parties’ agreement’.
Nor would it be proper for the court to ‘usurp the arbitrators’ role’
[Libyan American Oil Company (Liamco) v Socialist Peoples
Libyan Arab Yamahirya, (1982) VII Y.B. Comm. Arb., 382 at
388]. Accordingly, enforcement was ordered.”
D
40. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, in CRW Joint Operation
v. PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK, [2011] SGCA 33,
held as follows:
“25. The court’s power to set aside an arbitral award is limited to
E setting aside based on the grounds provided under Art 34 of the
Model Law and s 24 of the IAA. As declared by this court in Soh
Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd
[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 (“Soh Beng Tee”) at [59], the current legal
framework prescribes that the courts should not without good
reason interfere in the arbitral process. This policy of minimal
F curial intervention by respecting finality in the arbitral process
acknowledges the primacy which ought to be given to the dispute
resolution mechanism that the parties have expressly chosen.
26. However, it has also been said (correctly) that no State will
permit a binding arbitral award to be given or enforced within its
G territory without being able to review the award, or, at least, without
allowing the parties an opportunity to address the court if there
has been a violation of due process or other irregularities in the
arbitral proceedings (see Peter Binder, International Commercial
Arbitration and Conciliation in UNCITRAL Model Law
H Jurisdictions (Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd Ed, 2010) at para 7-001).
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 587
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

27. While the Singapore courts infrequently exercise their power A
to set aside arbitral awards, they will unhesitatingly do so if a
statutorily prescribed ground for setting aside an arbitral award is
clearly established. The relevant grounds in this regard can be
classified into three broad categories (see generally Nigel Blackaby
et al, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Oxford
B
University Press, 5th Ed, 2009) (“Redfern and Hunter”) at paras
10.30–10.86). First, an award may be challenged on jurisdictional
grounds (ie, the non-existence of a valid and binding arbitration
clause, or other grounds that go to the adjudicability of the claim
determined by the arbitral tribunal). Second, an award may be
challenged on procedural grounds (eg, failure to give proper notice C
of the appointment of an arbitrator), and, third, the award may be
challenged on substantive grounds (eg, breach of the public policy
of the place of arbitration).”
xxx xxx xxx
31. It is useful, at this juncture, to set out some of the legal principles D
underlying the application of Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law.
First, Art 34(2)(a)(iii) is not concerned with the situation where
an arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute
which it purported to determine. Rather, it applies where the arbitral
tribunal improperly decided matters that had not been submitted E
to it or failed to decide matters that had been submitted to it. In
other words, Art 34(2)(a)(iii) addresses the situation where the
arbitral tribunal exceeded (or failed to exercise) the authority that
the parties granted to it (see Gary B Born, International
Commercial Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer, 2009) at vol 2, pp 2606–
2607 and 2798–2799). This ground for setting aside an arbitral F
award covers only an arbitral tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction
and does not extend to procedural matters (see Robert Merkin &
Johanna Hjalmarsson, Singapore Arbitration Legislation
Annotated (Informa, 2009) (“Singapore Arbitration
Legislation”) at p 117). G
32. Second, it must be noted that a failure by an arbitral tribunal
to deal with every issue referred to it will not ordinarily render its
arbitral award liable to be set aside. The crucial question in every
case is whether there has been real or actual prejudice to either
(or both) of the parties to the dispute. In this regard, the following H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A passage in Redfern and Hunter ([27] supra at para 10.40)
correctly summarises the position:
The significance of the issues that were not dealt with has to
be considered in relation to the award as a whole. For example,
it is not difficult to envisage a situation in which the issues that
B were overlooked were of such importance that, if they had
been dealt with, the whole balance of the award would have
been altered and its effect would have been different. [emphasis
added]
33. Third, it is trite that mere errors of law or even fact are not
C sufficient to warrant setting aside an arbitral award under Art
34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law (see Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v
Habibullah Coastal Power Co (Pte) Ltd [2010] 3 SLR 1 at
[19]–[22]). In the House of Lords decision of Lesotho Highlands
Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2006] 1 AC 221, which
concerned an application to set aside an arbitral award on the
D ground of the arbitral tribunal’s “exceeding its powers” (see s
68(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (c 23) (UK) (“the UK
Arbitration Act”)), Lord Steyn made clear (at [24]–[25]) the vital
distinction between the erroneous exercise by an arbitral tribunal
of an available power vested in it (which would amount to no
E more than a mere error of law) and the purported exercise by the
arbitral tribunal of a power which it did not possess. Only in the
latter situation, his Lordship stated, would an arbitral award be
liable to be set aside under s 68(2)(b) of the UK Arbitration Act
on the ground that the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its powers.
In a similar vein, Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law applies where
F an arbitral tribunal exceeds its authority by deciding matters beyond
its ambit of reference or fails to exercise the authority conferred
on it by failing to decide the matters submitted to it, which in turn
prejudices either or both of the parties to the dispute (see above
at [31]).”
G (emphasis supplied)
The UNCITRAL Guide on the New York Convention (supra) states:
“2. Article V (1)(c) finds its roots in article 2(c) of the 1927 Geneva
Convention. The language at the outset of article V (1)(c),
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 589
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

providing a ground for refusal of recognition or enforcement of A
awards exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement, is largely
unchanged from its counterpart in the 1927 Geneva Convention.
The New York Convention, however, limits the scope of article V
(1)(c) by omitting language found in article 2 of the 1927 Geneva
Convention which permitted enforcing authorities to delay, or create
B
conditions in relation to, the enforcement of awards, where the
award did not cover all the questions submitted to the arbitral
tribunal.
3. The drafters of the New York Convention further built on the
1927 Geneva Convention by explicitly allowing for severability of
the part of the award dealing with a difference not contemplated C
by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration,
or containing decisions on matters beyond the scope of the
submission to arbitration, in order to permit recognition and
enforcement of the part of the award containing decisions on
matters submitted to arbitration. Although there is generally little D
discussion of article V (1)(c) in the travaux préparatoires, the
inclusion of the provision allowing for partial recognition and
enforcement was the subject of some debate. The travaux
préparatoires show that various concerns were raised over the
form and substance of this principle, including concerns that
severability of arbitral awards would in practice “open the door to E
a review as to substance”, which the drafters of the New York
Convention sought to prevent. Courts have since
uncompromisingly asserted that article V (1)(c) does not permit
an enforcing authority to reconsider the merits of a dispute.
xxx xxx xxx F

6. Courts and commentators agree that an arbitration agreement
constitutes a “submission to arbitration” within the meaning of
article V (1)(c). Consequently, where an arbitral tribunal has
rendered an award which decides matters beyond the scope of
the arbitration agreement, there is a ground for refusing to enforce G
an award under article V (1)(c).
7. Courts have also held that the term “submission to arbitration”
can include an arbitration agreement modified, amended or

H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A supplemented by an arbitral institution’s terms of reference agreed
to by the arbitrators and disputing parties. Terms of reference
may indeed supplement or modify the arbitration agreement. For
example, a German court of appeal held that the parties had
concluded a new arbitration agreement by signing ICC Terms of
Reference. Similarly, a decision by the English House of Lords
B
stated that “[i]n the present case one is dealing with an ICC
arbitration agreement. In such a case the terms of reference which
under article 18 of the ICC rules are invariably settled may, of
course, amend or supplement the terms of the arbitration
agreement.”
C 8. Authors and courts have also considered whether article V
(1)(c) provides grounds for refusing to recognize or enforce where
the arbitrator’s decision goes beyond the parties’ pleadings or
prayers for relief to render an award ultra petita. Though some
authors have argued that article V (1)(c) provides a second,
D separate ground for refusal to enforce an award rendered ultra
petita, courts have rejected challenges to recognition or
enforcement under article V (1)(c) based on the fact that the
arbitrators had exceeded their authority by deciding on issues or
granting forms of relief beyond those pleaded by the parties. As
one United States court observed, “[u]nder the New York
E Convention, we examine whether the award exceeds the scope
of the [arbitration agreement], not whether the award exceeds
the scope of the parties’ pleadings”. This interpretation of article
V (1)(c) which distinguishes the parties’ pleadings or prayers for
relief from the “submission to arbitration” referred to in article V
F (1)(c), is consistent with a narrow interpretation of the grounds
for refusal to recognize or enforce an award.”
(emphasis supplied)
41. In an early U.S. judgment, viz., Parsons & Whittemore
Overseas Co., Inc., v. Societe Generale De L’industrie Du Papier
G (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969 (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,
1974) [“Parsons”], it was held:
“19. Under Article V(1)(c), one defending against enforcement
of an arbitral award may prevail by proving that:

H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 591
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

20. The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or A
not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it
contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission
to arbitration.
21. This provision tracks in more detailed form 10(d) of the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 10(d), which authorizes vacating an B
award ‘where the arbitrators exceeded their powers.’ Both
provisions basically allow a party to attack an award predicated
upon arbitration of a subject matter not within the agreement to
submit to arbitration. This defense to enforcement of a foreign
award, like the others already discussed, should be construed
narrowly. Once again, a narrow construction would comport with C
the enforcement-facilitating thrust of the Convention. In addition,
the case law under the similar provision of the Federal Arbitration
Act strongly supports a strict reading. See, e.g., United
Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363
U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); Coenen v. R. W. D
Pressprich & Co., 453 F.2d 1209 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S.
949, 92 S.Ct. 2045, 32 L.Ed.2d 337 (1972).
22. In making this defense as to three components of the award,
Overseas must therefore overcome a powerful presumption that
the arbitral body acted within its powers. Overseas principally E
directs its challenge at the $185,000 awarded for loss of production.
Its jurisdictional claim focuses on the provision of the contract
reciting that ‘neither party shall have any liability for loss of
production.’ The tribunal cannot properly be charged, however,
with simply ignoring this alleged limitation on the subject matter
over which its decision-making powers extended. Rather, the F
arbitration court interpreted the provision not to preclude jurisdiction
on this matter. As in United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise
Wheel & Car Corp., supra, the court may be satisfied that the
arbitrator premised the award on a construction of the contract
and that it is ‘not apparent,’ 363 U.S. 593 at 598, 80 S.Ct. 1358, G
that the scope of the submission to arbitration has been exceeded.”
xxx xxx xxx
“24. Although the Convention recognizes that an award may not
be enforced where predicated on a subject matter outside the
H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A arbitrator’s jurisdiction, it does not sanction second-guessing the
arbitrator’s construction of the parties’ agreement. The appellant’s
attempt to invoke this defense, however, calls upon the court to
ignore this limitation on its decision-making powers and usurp the
arbitrator’s role. The district court took a proper view of its own
jurisdiction in refusing to grant relief on this ground.”
B
(emphasis supplied)
In Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo
SpA and Ors., [2005] 3 All ER 789 [HL], after setting out the English
statutory provision, the precise question which faced the Court was stated
C thus:
“[3] …… Section 68, so far as material, reads as follows:
“(1) A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the
other parties and to the tribunal) apply to the court challenging
an award in the proceedings on the ground of serious irregularity
D affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award …
(2) Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more
of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or
will cause substantial injustice to the applicant –
… (b) the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by
E
exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67)”
The question arises how section 68(2)(b) and section 69, so
far as the latter excludes a right of appeal on a question of law,
are to operate. Specifically, can an alleged error of arbitrators
in interpreting the underlying or principal contract be an excess
F
of power under section 68(2)(b), so as to give the court the
power to intervene, rather than an error of law, which can only
be challenged under section 69 if the right of appeal has not
been excluded?”
This was answered by the Court, thus:
G
“[23] Contrary to the view I have expressed, I will now assume
that the tribunal committed an error of law. That error of law
could have taken more than one form. The judge (para 25) and
the Court of Appeal (para 35) approached the matter on the basis
that the tribunal erred in the interpretation of the underlying contract.
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 593
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

Another possibility is that the tribunal misinterpreted its powers, A
under section 48(4) to express the award in any currency. Let me
approach the matter on the basis that there was a mistake by the
tribunal in one of these forms. Whichever is the case, the highest
the case can be put is that the tribunal committed an error of
law.”
B
xxx xxx xxx
“[30] The New York Convention on the recognition and
enforcement of Foreign arbitral awards 1958 and article 34 of the
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
were in part a provenance of section 68: see General Note to C
section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 as published in Current
Law Statutes 1996, p 23-46. Specifically, it is likely that the
inspiration of the words “the tribunal exceeding its powers
(otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction)” in section
68 are the terms of article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention
and the jurisprudence on it. The context is that article V(1)(a) D
stipulates that the invalidity of the arbitration agreement is a ground
for non-enforcement of an award: it involves the competence of
the arbitrator. Article V(1)(c) relates to matters beyond the scope
of the submission to arbitration. It deals with cases of excess of
power or authority of the arbitrator. It is well established that E
article V(1)(c) must be construed narrowly and should never lead
to a re-examination of the merits of the award: Parsons &
Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Sociéte Générale de l’Industrie
du Papier (RAKTA) 508 F 2d 969 (2nd Cir 1974); Albert Jan van
den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 (1981),
pp 311-318; Domenico Di Pietro and Martin Platte, Enforcement F
of International Arbitration Awards: The New York Convention
of 1958 (2001), pp 158-162. By citing the Parsons decision
counsel for the contractors alerted the House to this analogy. It
points to a narrow interpretation of section 68(2)(b). The policy
underlying section 68(2)(b) as set out in the DAC report similarly G
points to a restrictive interpretation.
[31] By its very terms section 68(2)(b) assumes that the tribunal
acted within its substantive jurisdiction. It is aimed at the
tribunal exceeding its powers under the arbitration agreement,
terms of reference or the 1996 Act. Section 68(2)(b) does not H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A permit a challenge on the ground that the tribunal arrived at a
wrong conclusion as a matter of law or fact. It is not apt to cover
a mere error of law. This view is reinforced if one takes into
account that a mistake in interpreting the contract is the paradigm
of a “question of law” which may in the circumstances specified
in section 69 be appealed unless the parties have excluded that
B
right by agreement. In cases where the right of appeal has by
agreement, sanctioned by the Act, been excluded, it would be
curious to allow a challenge under section 68(2)(b) to be based on
a mistaken interpretation of the underlying contract. Moreover, it
would be strange where there is no exclusion agreement, to allow
C parallel challenges under section 68(2)(b) and section 69.
[32] In order to decide whether section 68(2)(b) is engaged it will
be necessary to focus intensely on the particular power under an
arbitration agreement, the terms of reference, or the 1996 Act
which is involved, judged in all the circumstances of the case. In
D making this general observation it must always be borne in mind
that the erroneous exercise of an available power cannot by itself
amount to an excess of power. A mere error of law will not amount
to an excess of power under section 68(2)(b).
[33] For these reasons the Court of Appeal erred in concluding
E that the tribunal exceeded its powers on the currency point. If the
tribunal erred in any way, it was an error within its power.
[34] I am glad to have arrived at this conclusion. It is consistent
with the legislative purpose of the 1996 Act, which is intended to
promote one-stop adjudication. If the contrary view of the Court
F of Appeal had prevailed, it would have opened up many
opportunities for challenging awards on the basis that the tribunal
exceeded its powers in ruling on the currency of the award. Such
decisions are an everyday occurrence in the arbitral world. If the
view of the Court of Appeal had been upheld, a very serious defect
in the machinery of the 1996 Act would have been revealed. The
G fact that this case has been before courts at three levels and that
enforcement of the award has been delayed for more than three
years reinforces the importance of the point.”
(emphasis supplied)

H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 595
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

The High Court of Ireland, in Patrick Ryan & Ann Ryan and A
Kevin O’Leary (Clonmel) Ltd. & General Motors, [2018] IEHC
660 (High Court of Ireland, 2018), put it thus:
“24. As regards the second principle which emerges from the
case law, namely, that an application to set aside is not an appeal
from the decision of the arbitrator and does not confer upon the B
court the opportunity of second-guessing the arbitrator’s decision
on the merits, it is sufficient to refer to a small number of the Irish
cases and the observations made in those cases. In Snoddy
(Snoddy v. Mavroudis [2013] IEHC 285), Laffoy J. made it very
clear that it was not open to the court to second-guess the
construction of the relevant contractual issue in that case by the C
arbitrator by way of a set aside application. Laffoy J. stated that
if the court were to do so, it would be usurping the arbitrator’s
role (para. 34, p. 16). In Delargy (Delargy v. Hickey [2015]
IEHC 436), Gilligan J. stated:
“It is no function of this Court to attempt in any way to D
second guess the decision as arrived at by the arbitrator
and this Court does not propose to do so.” (para. 74, p.
37).
Later in his judgment, Gilligan J. stated that:
E
“This Court does not consider that it is appropriate to
revisit the merits of the arbitrator’s award.” (para. 78, p.
39).
25. In O’Leary Lissarda (O’Leary Lissarda v. Ryan [2015]
IEHC 820), McGovern J. noted the acknowledgment of the F
applicant that an application to set aside an award “…is not a
proceeding in the nature of an appeal against the arbitral
award on the merits.” (para. 5, p. 2). He rejected one of the
grounds on which it was sought to set aside the award in that
case on the basis that it “… effectively amounts to an attempt
to appeal the arbitrator’s decision which is not permissible.” G
(para. 11, p. 4).
xxx xxx xxx
“39. The Irish courts have had the opportunity of considering the
proper approach to be taken in considering a challenge to an award
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A based on Article 34(2)(a)(iii) where it is suggested that an arbitrator
has exceeded his or her authority or acted outside his or her
mandate. The leading Irish case on this point is Snoddy (Snoddy
v. Mavroudis [2013] IEHC 285). In Snoddy, (Snoddy v.
Mavroudis [2013] IEHC 285) Laffoy J. quoted with approval the
commentary contained in Mansfield in relation to Article
B
34(2)(a)(iii). She stated as follows:
“Mansfield’s commentary on that provision is that it is a
ground –
‘[t]hat the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by
C or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration,
or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the
submission to arbitration. Commentators have noted that
‘this ground is infrequently invoked and it is even less
frequently accepted by national courts to set an award aside’
and international case-law decided under the Model Law
D has held that this ground is to be narrowly construed.’
The commentators cited in that passage are Brekoulakis and
Shore in Mistelis on Concise International Arbitration (1st Ed.,
Kluwer, 2010). In that text, the commentators also state (at p.
647) that ‘a strong presumption should exist that a tribunal
E acts within its mandate’.” (per Laffoy J. at para. 32, pp. 14 -
14).
40. Laffoy J. in Snoddy (Snoddy v. Mavroudis [2013] IEHC
285) went on to observe that Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model
Law was based on a corresponding provision contained in the
F New York Convention (the Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done at New York on
10th June, 1958), which was Article V(1)(c). Laffoy J. continued:
“As was pointed out by Lord Steyn in Lesotho Highlands
Development v. Impregilo SpA [2006] 1 AC 221, s. 68 of the
G UK Arbitration Act 1996 was modelled on the New York
Convention and on the Model Law. In considering the
application of that statutory provision, Lord Steyn considered
Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention stating (at p. 236):
‘It deals with cases of excess of power or authority of the
H arbitrator. It is well established that article V(1)(c) must be
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 597
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

construed narrowly and should never lead to a re- A
examination of the merits of the award.’
Lord Steyn cited a decision of the US Federal Courts as
authority for that last proposition: Parsons & Whittemore
Overseas Co Inc v Sociéte Générale de l’Industrie du
Papier, (1974) 508 F. 2d 969 (2nd Circuit). The limits on the B
excess of jurisdiction ground for setting aside an arbitration
are, in my view, clearly brought home by the following passage
from the opinion of Judge Smith in the Parsons case where he
stated:
‘Although the Convention recognises that an award may C
not be enforced where predicated on a subject matter
outside the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, it does not sanction
second-guessing the arbitrator’s construction of the parties’
agreement. The appellant’s attempt to invoke this defense,
however, calls upon the Court to ignore this limitation on its
decision-making powers and usurp the arbitrator’s role.’” D
(per Laffoy J. at para. 33, pp. 15 - 16).”
41. These dicta of Laffoy J. in Snoddy (Snoddy v. Mavroudis
[2013] IEHC 285) were cited with approval and followed by
Galligan J. in Delargy (Delargy v. Hickey [2015] IEHC 436)
(at para. 31, pp. 13 - 14 and para. 65, pp. 33 - 34). The cases E
make clear that there is a presumption that the arbitral tribunal
has acted within its mandate and the onus of establishing
otherwise rests with the party seeking to set aside the award
on this ground.”
(emphasis in original) F
In State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises, (2012) 12 SCC 581
[“Praveen Enterprises”], this Court set out what is meant by “reference
to arbitration” as follows:
“10. ”Reference to arbitration” describes various acts. Reference
G
to arbitration can be by parties themselves or by an appointing
authority named in the arbitration agreement or by a court on an
application by a party to the arbitration agreement. We may
elaborate:

H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A (a) If an arbitration agreement provides that all disputes
between the parties relating to the contract (some agreements
may refer to some exceptions) shall be referred to arbitration
and that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding,
the “reference” contemplated is the act of parties to the
arbitration agreement, referring their disputes to an agreed
B
arbitrator to settle the disputes.
(b) If an arbitration agreement provides that in the event of
any dispute between the parties, an authority named therein
shall nominate the arbitrator and refer the disputes which
required to be settled by arbitration, the “reference”
C contemplated is an act of the appointing authority referring the
disputes to the arbitrator appointed by him.
(c) Where the parties fail to concur in the appointment of
the arbitrator(s) as required by the arbitration agreement, or
the authority named in the arbitration agreement failing to
D nominate the arbitrator and refer the disputes raised to
arbitration as required by the arbitration agreement, on an
application by an aggrieved party, the court can appoint the
arbitrator and on such appointment, the disputes between the
parties stand referred to such arbitrator in terms of the
E arbitration agreement.
11. Reference to arbitration can be in respect of all disputes
between the parties or all disputes regarding a contract or in
respect of specific enumerated disputes. Where “all disputes”
are referred, the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to decide all disputes
F raised in the pleadings (both claims and counterclaims) subject to
any limitations placed by the arbitration agreement. Where the
arbitration agreement provides that all disputes shall be settled by
arbitration but excludes certain matters from arbitration, then, the
arbitrator will exclude the excepted matter and decide only those
disputes which are arbitrable. But where the reference to the
G arbitrator is to decide specific disputes enumerated by the parties/
court/appointing authority, the arbitrator’s jurisdiction is
circumscribed by the specific reference and the arbitrator can
decide only those specific disputes.”
42. A conspectus of the above authorities would show that where
H an arbitral tribunal has rendered an award which decides matters either
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 599
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or beyond the disputes A
referred to the arbitral tribunal, as understood in Praveen Enterprises
(supra), the arbitral award could be said to have dealt with decisions on
matters beyond the scope of submission to arbitration.
43. We therefore hold, following the aforesaid authorities, that in
the guise of misinterpretation of the contract, and consequent “errors of B
jurisdiction”, it is not possible to state that the arbitral award would be
beyond the scope of submission to arbitration if otherwise the aforesaid
misinterpretation (which would include going beyond the terms of the
contract), could be said to have been fairly comprehended as “disputes”
within the arbitration agreement, or which were referred to the decision
of the arbitrators as understood by the authorities above. If an arbitrator C
is alleged to have wandered outside the contract and dealt with matters
not allotted to him, this would be a jurisdictional error which could be
corrected on the ground of “patent illegality”, which, as we have seen,
would not apply to international commercial arbitrations that are decided
under Part II of the 1996 Act. To bring in by the backdoor grounds D
relatable to Section 28(3) of the 1996 Act to be matters beyond the
scope of submission to arbitration under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) would not
be permissible as this ground must be construed narrowly and so
construed, must refer only to matters which are beyond the arbitration
agreement or beyond the reference to the arbitral tribunal.
E
Most Basic Notions of Justice
44. The expression “most basic notions of … justice” finds mention
in Explanation 1 to sub-clause (iii) to Section 34(2)(b). Here again, what
is referred to is, substantively or procedurally, some fundamental principle
of justice which has been breached, and which shocks the conscience F
of the Court. Thus, in Parsons (supra), it was held:
“7. Article V(2)(b) of the Convention allows the court in which
enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is sought to refuse
enforcement, on the defendant’s motion or sua sponte, if
‘enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy G
of (the forum) country.’ The legislative history of the provision
offers no certain guidelines to its construction. Its precursors in
the Geneva Convention and the 1958 Convention’s ad hoc
committee draft extended the public policy exception to,
respectively, awards contrary to ‘principles of the law’ and awards
violative of ‘fundamental principles of the law.’ In one H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A commentator’s view, the Convention’s failure to include similar
language signifies a narrowing of the defense [Contini, International
Commercial Arbitration, 8 Am.J.Comp.L. 283, 304]. On the other
hand, another noted authority in the field has seized upon this
omission as indicative of an intention to broaden the defense
[Quigley, Accession by the United States to the United Nations
B
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards, 70 Yale L.J. 1049, 1070-71 (1961)].
8. Perhaps more probative, however, are the inferences to be
drawn from the history of the Convention as a whole. The general
pro-enforcement bias informing the Convention and explaining its
C supersession of the Geneva Convention points toward a narrow
reading of the public policy defense. An expansive construction
of this defense would vitiate the Convention’s basic effort to
remove preexisting obstacles to enforcement. [See Straus,
Arbitration of Disputes between Multinational Corporations, in
D New Strategies for Peaceful Resolution of International Business
Disputes 114-15 (1971); Digest of Proceedings of International
Business Disputes Conference, April 14, 1971, at 191 (remarks
of Professor W. Reese)]. Additionally, considerations of reciprocity
– considerations given express recognition in the Convention itself
– counsel courts to invoke the public policy defense with caution
E lest foreign courts frequently accept it as a defense to enforcement
of arbitral awards rendered in the United States.
9. We conclude, therefore, that the Convention’s public policy
defense should be construed narrowly. Enforcement of foreign
arbitral awards may be denied on this basis only where
F enforcement would violate the forum state’s most basic notions
of morality and justice. [Restatement Second of the Conflict of
Laws 117, comment c, at 340 (1971); Loucks v. Standard Oil Co.,
224 N.Y. 99, 111, 120 N.E. 198 (1918)].”
In Dongwoo Mann+hummel Co. Ltd. v. Mann+hummel
G Gmbh, [2008] SGHC 67, the High Court of Singapore held:
“131. In PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank
SA [2007] 1 SLR 597 (“PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero)”),
the Court of Appeal explained what would constitute a conflict
with public policy (at [57] and [59]):
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 601
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

57. … The legislative policy under the Act is to minimise curial A
intervention in international arbitrations. Errors of law or fact
made in an arbitral decision, per se, are final and binding on
the parties and may not be appealed against or set aside by a
court except in the situations prescribed under s 24 of the Act
and Art 34 of the Model Law. … In the present context, errors
B
of law or fact, per se, do not engage the public policy of
Singapore under Art 34(2)(b) (ii) of the Model Law when they
cannot be set aside under Art 34(2)(a) (iii) of the Model Law.
xxx xxx xxx
59. Although the concept of public policy of the State is not C
defined in the Act or the Model Law, the general consensus of
judicial and expert opinion is that public policy under the Act
encompasses a narrow scope. In our view, it should only
operate in instances where the upholding of an arbitral award
would “shock the conscience” (see Downer Connect ([58]
supra) at [136]), or is “clearly injurious to the public good D
or … wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully
informed member of the public” (see Deutsche Schachbau
v Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyds’ Rep
246 at 254, per Sir John Donaldson MR), or where it violates
the forum’s most basic notion of morality and justice: see E
Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Societe Generale
de L’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA) 508 F 2d, 969 (2nd Cir,
1974) at 974. This would be consistent with the concept of
public policy that can be ascertained from the preparatory
materials to the Model Law. As was highlighted in the
Commission Report (A/40/17), at para 297 (referred to in A F
Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History and
Commentary by Howard M Holtzmann and Joseph E Neuhaus
(Kluwer, 1989) at 914):
In discussing the term ‘public policy’, it was understood G
that it was not equivalent to the political stance or
international policies of a State but comprised the
fundamental notions and principles of justice… It was
understood that the term ‘public policy’, which was used in
the 1958 New York Convention and many other treaties, H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A covered fundamental principles of law and justice in
substantive as well as procedural respects. Thus, instances
such as corruption, bribery or fraud and similar serious
cases would constitute a ground for setting aside.”
(emphasis in original)
B 132. In Profilati Italia SRL v Paine Webber Inc [2001] 1
Lloyd’s Rep 715 (“Profilati”), Moore-Bick J made the following
observations in relation to the argument that non-disclosure of
material documents constituted a breach of public policy in the
context of s 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (at [17],
C [19] and [26]):
17. … Where the successful party is said to have procured
the award in a way which is contrary to public policy it will
normally be necessary to satisfy the Court that some form
of reprehensible or unconscionable conduct on his part has
D contributed in a substantial way to obtaining an award in
his favour. Moreover, I do not think that the Court should
be quick to interfere under this section [ie, s 68(2)(g) of the
Arbitration Act 1996]. In those cases in which s. 68 has so
far been considered the Court has emphasized that it is
intended to operate only in extreme cases...
E
xxx xxx xxx
19. Where an important document which ought to have
been disclosed is deliberately withheld and as a result the
party withholding it has obtained an award in his favour the
F Court may well consider that he procured that award in a
manner contrary to public policy. After all, such conduct is
not far removed from fraud…
xxx xxx xxx
26. Even if there had been a deliberate failure to give
G disclosure of the two documents in question it would still be
necessary for Profilati to satisfy the Court that it had suffered
substantial injustice as a result.”
And finally, in BAZ v. BBA and Ors., [2018] SGHC 275, the
High Court of Singapore stated:
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 603
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

“156. From the outset, it is important to reiterate that the public A
policy ground for setting aside or refusal of recognition/
enforcement is very narrow in scope. The Court of Appeal has
held that the ground should only succeed in cases where upholding
or enforcing the arbitral award would “shock the conscience”, or
be “clearly injurious to the public good or … wholly offensive to
B
the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public”,
or violate “the forum’s most basic notion of morality and justice”
(PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2007]
1 SLR(R) 597 (“PT Asuransi”) at [59]). In Sui Southern Gas
Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co (Pte) Ltd [2010] 3
SLR 1 (“Sui Southern Gas”), the High Court stated that to C
succeed on a public policy argument, the party “had to cross a
very high threshold and demonstrate egregious circumstances such
as corruption, bribery or fraud, which would violate the most basic
notions of morality and justice” (at [48]). The 1985 UN
Commission Report states at para 297 that the term public policy
D
“comprised the fundamental notions and principles of justice”, and
it was understood that the term “covered fundamental principles
of law and justice in substantive as well as procedural respects”.
The 1985 UN Commission Report further explains that Art
34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law “was not to be interpreted as
excluding instances or events relating to the manner in which an E
award was arrived at”.
157. It is clear that errors of law or fact, per se, do not engage
the public policy of Singapore under Art 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model
Law when they cannot be set aside under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the
Model Law (PT Asuransi at [57]), with the exception that the F
court’s judicial power to decide what the public policy of Singapore
is cannot be abrogated (AJU v AJT [2011] 4 SLR 739 (“AJU v
AJT”) at [62]). ……
xxx xxx xxx
159. …… This balance is generally in favour of the policy of G
enforcing arbitral awards, and only tilts in favour of the
countervailing public policy where the violation of that policy would
“shock the conscience” or would be contrary to “the forum’s most
basic notion of morality and justice”. In determining whether the
balance tilts towards the countervailing public policy, it is important H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A to consider both the subject nature of the public policy, the degree
of violation of that public policy and the consequences of the
violation.”
(emphasis supplied)
45. Given these parameters of challenge, let us now examine the
B arguments of learned counsel on behalf of the appellant. There can be
no doubt that the government guidelines that were referred to and strongly
relied upon by the majority award to arrive at the linking factor were
never in evidence before the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal relies upon
the said guidelines by itself and states that they are to be found on a
C certain website. The ground that is expressly taken in the Section 34
petition by the appellant is as follows:
“It is pertinent to mention here that no such guidelines of the
Ministry of Industrial Development had been filed on record by
either of the parties and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction
D to rely upon the same while deciding the issue before it.
Accordingly, the impugned Award is liable to be set aside.”
46. Learned counsel for the respondent also agreed that these
guidelines were never, in fact, disclosed in the arbitration proceedings.
This being the case, and given the authorities cited hereinabove, it is
E clear that the appellant would be directly affected as it would otherwise
be unable to present its case, not being allowed to comment on the
applicability or interpretation of those guidelines. For example, the
appellant could have argued, without prejudice to the argument that linking
is de hors the contract, that of the three methods for linking the New
Series with the Old Series, either the second or the third method would
F be preferable to the first method, which the majority award has applied
on its own. For this reason, the majority award needs to be set aside
under Section 34(2)(a)(iii).
47. Insofar as the argument that a new contract had been made
by the majority award for the parties, without the consent of the appellant,
G by applying a formula outside the agreement, as per the Circular dated
15.02.2013, which itself could not be applied without the appellant’s
consent, we are of the view that this ground under Section 34(2)(a)(iv)
would not be available, given the authorities discussed in detail by us. It
is enough to state that the appellant argued before the arbitral tribunal
that a new contract was being made by applying the formula outside
H
SSANGYONG ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD. v. NATIONAL 605
HIGHWAYS AUTH. OF INDIA (NHAI)[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

what was prescribed, which was answered by the respondent, stating A
that it would not be possible to apply the old formula without a linking
factor which would have to be introduced. Considering that the parties
were at issue on this, the dispute as to whether the linking factor applied,
thanks to the Circular dated 15.02.2013, is clearly something raised and
argued by the parties, and is certainly something which would fall within
B
the arbitration clause or the reference to arbitration that governs the
parties. This being the case, this argument would not obtain and Section
34(2)(a)(iv), as a result, would not be attracted.
48. However, when it comes to the public policy of India argument
based upon “most basic notions of justice”, it is clear that this ground
can be attracted only in very exceptional circumstances when the C
conscience of the Court is shocked by infraction of fundamental notions
or principles of justice. It can be seen that the formula that was applied
by the agreement continued to be applied till February, 2013 – in short, it
is not correct to say that the formula under the agreement could not be
applied in view of the Ministry’s change in the base indices from 1993- D
94 to 2004-05. Further, in order to apply a linking factor, a Circular,
unilaterally issued by one party, cannot possibly bind the other party to
the agreement without that other party’s consent. Indeed, the Circular
itself expressly stipulates that it cannot apply unless the contractors
furnish an undertaking/affidavit that the price adjustment under the
Circular is acceptable to them. We have seen how the appellant gave E
such undertaking only conditionally and without prejudice to its argument
that the Circular does not and cannot apply. This being the case, it is
clear that the majority award has created a new contract for the parties
by applying the said unilateral Circular and by substituting a workable
formula under the agreement by another formula de hors the agreement. F
This being the case, a fundamental principle of justice has been breached,
namely, that a unilateral addition or alteration of a contract can never be
foisted upon an unwilling party, nor can a party to the agreement be
liable to perform a bargain not entered into with the other party. Clearly,
such a course of conduct would be contrary to fundamental principles of
justice as followed in this country, and shocks the conscience of this G
Court. However, we repeat that this ground is available only in very
exceptional circumstances, such as the fact situation in the present case.
Under no circumstance can any Court interfere with an arbitral award
on the ground that justice has not been done in the opinion of the Court.
H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A That would be an entry into the merits of the dispute which, as we have
seen, is contrary to the ethos of Section 34 of the 1996 Act, as has been
noted earlier in this judgment.
49. The judgments of the Single Judge and of the Division Bench
of the Delhi High Court are set aside. Consequently, the majority award
B is also set aside. Under the Scheme of Section 34 of the 1996 Act, the
disputes that were decided by the majority award would have to be
referred afresh to another arbitration. This would cause considerable
delay and be contrary to one of the important objectives of the 1996 Act,
namely, speedy resolution of disputes by the arbitral process under the
Act. Therefore, in order to do complete justice between the parties,
C invoking our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and
given the fact that there is a minority award which awards the appellant
its claim based upon the formula mentioned in the agreement between
the parties, we uphold the minority award, and state that it is this award,
together with interest, that will now be executed between the parties.
D The minority award, in paragraphs 11 and 12, states as follows:
“11. I therefore award the claim of the Claimant in full.
12. Costs – no amount is awarded to the parties. Each party shall
bear its own cost.”

E Given the reliefs claimed by the appellant in their statement of
claim before the learned arbitrators, what is awarded to the appellant is
the principal sum of INR 2,01,42,827/- towards price adjustment payable
under sub-clause 70.3 of the contract, for the work done under the
contract from September 2010 to May 2014, as well as interest at the
rate of 10%, compounded monthly from the due date of payment to the
F date of the award, i.e., 02.05.2016, plus future interest at the rate of
12% per annum (simple) till the date of payment.
50. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.
G

H