In the case of M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd. v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of whether a delay in the publication of an arbitral award could serve as a ground for its invalidation. The appellant, M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd., had entered into a contract with the respondent, Union of India, for certain construction work valued at ₹1,53,054. The stipulated completion date was October 31, 1999, but the work was completed on April 3, 2000, following an extension granted from November 1, 1999, to April 3, 2000. Upon completion, disputes arose regarding the claims raised by the appellant for the work executed, leading to arbitration as per the contractual agreement between the parties.
The sole arbitrator commenced proceedings on September 3, 2002, and concluded the final hearing on August 4, 2004. However, the award was published on May 11, 2005, approximately nine months after the conclusion of the hearings. The appellant challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, citing the significant delay in its publication as a primary ground for setting it aside. The Additional District Judge (ADJ) dismissed the objections on February 3, 2010, leading to the present appeal before the Delhi High Court.
The appellant contended that the inordinate delay of over two years in publishing the award, particularly the nine-month gap after the final hearing, rendered the award invalid. They argued that such a delay violated the principles of natural justice and undermined the efficacy of the arbitral process, which is intended to provide expeditious resolution of disputes. The appellant also highlighted that the delay caused the stamp paper used for the award to become invalid, further questioning the award's legitimacy.
Conversely, the respondent maintained that the delay in publishing the award did not, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for setting it aside. They argued that unless the appellant could demonstrate that the delay had materially affected their rights or caused substantial prejudice, the award should stand. The respondent emphasized that the appellant failed to show any specific harm or injustice resulting from the delay.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma, presiding over the case, observed that while timely delivery of arbitral awards is crucial to uphold the integrity and efficiency of the arbitration process, not every delay warrants the annulment of the award. The court noted that for a delay to invalidate an award, it must be shown that the delay has materially affected the rights of the parties involved. In this case, the appellant did not provide evidence demonstrating that the nine-month delay caused any specific prejudice or harm to their interests.
The court referred to precedents where delays in publishing arbitral awards were scrutinized. In Bhogilal Purshottam v. Chimanlal Amritlal, it was held that an unexplained delay in making an award could amount to misconduct. However, the court distinguished the present case by emphasizing that there was no indication that the delay was due to any mala fide intent or misconduct by the arbitrator. Furthermore, the appellant continued to participate in the proceedings without objection, implying acquiescence to the process despite the delay.
The court also considered Harji Engg. Works (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., where it was held that an award passed after an inordinate and unexplained delay would be contrary to justice and could be set aside. However, in the present case, the court found that the delay, though substantial, did not, in itself, lead to a miscarriage of justice or violate public policy. The appellant's failure to demonstrate tangible prejudice was a critical factor in the court's decision.
Additionally, the court addressed the appellant's concern regarding the validity of the stamp paper used for the award. It was noted that while stamp papers have a validity period, the mere fact that the stamp paper became invalid due to the delay does not automatically render the award invalid. The appellant did not provide any legal basis or precedent to support the claim that the use of an invalid stamp paper, resulting from a delay, would nullify the award.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal and affirming the validity of the arbitral award despite the delay in its publication. The court underscored that while delays in the arbitration process are undesirable and should be avoided to maintain the efficacy of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, not every delay warrants the setting aside of an award. It must be demonstrated that such a delay has caused material prejudice or adversely affected the rights of the parties involved. In the absence of such evidence, as in the present case, the award remains binding and enforceable.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.