In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the authority of arbitral tribunals to issue awards grounded on evidentiary admissions, even when such admissions are extrinsic to formal pleadings. This judgment underscores the judiciary's endorsement of arbitration as an efficacious mechanism for dispute resolution and delineates the constraints on judicial intervention under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Factual Background
The dispute originated from a Letter of Award (LOA) dated October 11, 2010, wherein Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) was commissioned to undertake the design, engineering, manufacturing, inspection, and testing of a Boiler Turbine Generator for Rattan India Power Ltd.'s (formerly Indiabulls Power Ltd.) 5x270 MW Thermal Power Plant in Amravati, Maharashtra. Subsequent to the LOA, both parties formalized their agreement through a supply contract and a services contract on May 26, 2011.
Contentions arose when BHEL asserted that Rattan India defaulted on its payment obligations concerning the supplied plant, machinery, equipment, and services. This impasse culminated in BHEL terminating the contract on November 27, 2015. In response, both parties sought interim awards based on purported admissions by the other, leading to the impugned interim award dated July 27, 2017, which Rattan India contested under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Petitioner's Contentions
Represented by Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Rattan India challenged the interim award on both factual and legal grounds. The crux of their argument was that the minutes from meetings held on November 21, 2012; April 9, 2013; September 6, 2013; and January 15, 2014, which BHEL relied upon, did not constitute unequivocal admissions of liability. Rattan India contended that, at most, these minutes acknowledged the receipt of goods and invoices but did not amount to an admission of liability for payment. They further argued that the goods were supplied non-sequentially, rendering them unusable, and that the arbitral tribunal erred in relying on evidentiary admissions without considering the broader context and contemporaneous correspondence highlighting the payment dispute. They emphasized that such evidentiary admissions required testing through cross-examination and could not solely form the basis of an interim award.
Respondent's Counterarguments
BHEL, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Jayant Mehta, defended the interim award by emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of courts under Section 34. They argued that the arbitral tribunal had correctly interpreted the minutes of the meetings as unequivocal and unambiguous admissions of liability. BHEL asserted that Rattan India had admitted to receiving and accepting the goods, and that the issue of sequential supply was a weak defense to avoid payment. They highlighted that the tribunal had considered all evidence and pleadings, and that the court should not reassess factual findings in a Section 34 challenge. Additionally, BHEL pointed out that Rattan India's issuance of 'C-forms' further corroborated the acceptance of goods and the associated financial acknowledgment.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
Justice Prateek Jalan presided over the case and conducted an extensive review of precedents concerning judgments and awards based on admissions. The court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, which clarified that admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are not confined to pleadings but extend to admissions "otherwise," including oral or written statements. The High Court emphasized that the objective of Order XII Rule 6, and by extension, Section 31(6) of the Arbitration Act (regarding interim awards), is to facilitate swift judgments or awards on admitted claims.
The court distinguished between "judicial admissions" in pleadings and "evidentiary admissions," acknowledging the petitioner's reliance on Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam. However, Justice Jalan clarified that while evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof, they can form the basis of a judgment or award, especially when considered within the context of the case and if the tribunal reasonably concludes they are credible.
The judgment cited Nimbus Communications Ltd. v. Prasar Bharati, NDMC v. N.S. Associates (P) Ltd., and Shutham Electric Ltd. v. Vaibhav Raheja, all reinforcing the power of arbitral tribunals to issue interim awards on admission and the narrow scope of Section 34 challenges. The court also referred to Chemical Systems Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd., which held that the issuance of C-forms can be considered as an acknowledgment of purchase and value of goods.
Key Excerpts from the Judgment
"On this preliminary point, upon a holistic reading of the decision, I am of the view that the respondent’s contention must prevail... The first part of the award deals with the respondent’s application, and categorically makes an 'interim award' in its favour. Interest has also been awarded upon the said amount and, in the very last paragraph (in the 'Incidental' section), provision has been made for stamping. These aspects admit of little doubt as to the finality of the award, to the extent the Tribunal found the respondent’s claims to be admitted."
"The Arbitral Tribunal has considered the minutes of the meetings, and found that they record express admissions of liability, fortified by subsequent correspondence between the parties. It has negated the petitioner’s contentions with regard to ambiguity or qualification in the admissions, and thus come to the conclusion that the admissions are of unimpeachable credence...The arguments advanced by Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, in my view, call for a reassessment of that evidence, which is not open to the Court."
Implications of the Judgment
The Delhi High Court's dismissal of Rattan India's petition and upholding of the interim arbitration award in favor of BHEL reinforces the limited grounds for challenging arbitration awards under Section 34, particularly when the award is based on admissions that the arbitral tribunal deems credible. This ruling underscores the judiciary's pro-arbitration stance and affirms the finality of arbitral decisions unless they fall within the narrow confines of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The enforcement proceedings for the interim award are now set to be listed before the appropriate bench.
Conclusion
This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for the arbitration community, elucidating the scope of arbitral tribunals' powers to issue awards based on evidentiary admissions and delineating the limited extent of judicial intervention under Section 34. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold the sanctity of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and reinforces the principle that admissions, whether within or outside pleadings, can form a legitimate basis for arbitral awards.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.