In a significant judgment concerning the scope of arbitral awards and the standards required under Indian arbitration law, the Bombay High Court ruled that arbitral tribunals must provide clear and cogent reasons when they reject claims for liquidated damages. The Court held that failure to provide such reasons amounts to "manifest arbitrariness" and could result in the award being set aside partially under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This ruling emerged from a case involving a dispute between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and GR Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (GRE), related to delays in the execution of a contract for the construction of LPG mounded bullet storage tanks at HPCL's refinery in Mumbai.
The contract, which was awarded in 2006, involved the construction of twelve mounded bullet tanks and was time-bound. HPCL had claimed that GRE failed to complete the work within the stipulated timeline, thereby causing financial losses. Consequently, HPCL invoked the clause in the contract that allowed for liquidated damages for delays and sought an amount of ₹5.83 crore. The contract had a liquidated damages provision that stipulated recovery at the rate of 0.5 percent of the total contract value for each week of delay, subject to a cap of 5 percent. This clause was meant to compensate HPCL for the anticipated loss due to any delay in project execution without requiring them to prove actual loss.
The dispute was referred to arbitration, where GRE raised multiple claims and HPCL filed counterclaims, including the liquidated damages demand. The arbitral tribunal, in its final award delivered in May 2018, rejected HPCL’s claim for liquidated damages, stating only that the claim was not maintainable. However, the tribunal did not offer any substantive reasoning or analysis on whether HPCL had suffered a loss, whether the clause was enforceable in the absence of proof of loss, or whether the agreed damages cap was a genuine pre-estimate of loss as required under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act.
Aggrieved by the rejection, HPCL filed a petition before the Bombay High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking to set aside the award partially, particularly the portion where the tribunal denied its liquidated damages claim. The matter was heard by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, who, after an exhaustive review of the arbitral award and legal precedents, concluded that the tribunal’s decision was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court held that a tribunal cannot simply deny liquidated damages without analyzing whether the conditions under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act were met. That provision allows courts or tribunals to award reasonable compensation even in the absence of proof of actual loss, provided the stipulated sum is a genuine pre-estimate agreed upon by both parties.
Justice Sundaresan emphasized that the arbitral tribunal had completely failed to examine the nature of the contract clause, the reasons for the delay, and the contractual framework within which the damages were calculated. The tribunal did not assess whether proving actual loss would have been difficult in the context of a delayed infrastructure project, which typically involves numerous commercial variables. This omission, the Court held, undermined the integrity of the award. A tribunal’s obligation to provide reasons is not merely procedural but forms a critical part of natural justice and judicial discipline. When damages are contractually agreed upon, the tribunal has a duty to assess their enforceability with adequate reasoning.
The Court, however, did not find fault with the entire arbitral award. GRE had succeeded on several other claims during the arbitration, including amounts due for civil work, tax reimbursements, and customs duty. The High Court upheld these parts of the award, noting that the tribunal had dealt with these issues in detail, provided sufficient reasoning, and made its decisions within the scope of the evidence and the contract. The Court found no ground to interfere with those determinations and reaffirmed the principle that judicial review of arbitral awards should remain limited and deferential unless there is a clear violation of public policy, patent illegality, or manifest procedural unfairness.
Importantly, the Bombay High Court decided to sever the award and partially set aside only that portion which denied liquidated damages. It permitted HPCL to re-agitate the claim for liquidated damages in a fresh arbitration, restricted to that specific issue. The rest of the award, including the amounts granted to GRE, remained unaffected. This severability approach reflects a balanced judicial strategy that both preserves the sanctity of arbitral proceedings and ensures that glaring legal errors do not go uncorrected.
In addressing related arguments, the Court also clarified the nature of internal reports relied upon by HPCL. The company had attempted to justify its claim by citing adverse observations from its internal vigilance department. Justice Sundaresan held that such internal reports cannot be equated with findings of a statutory authority or external inspector. The arbitral tribunal was right in not attaching binding value to such internal assessments, as they did not constitute legally admissible proof of wrongdoing or breach.
This ruling by the Bombay High Court sends an important message to arbitrators and contracting parties alike. It reinforces that while arbitration is a mechanism meant to deliver speedy and final outcomes, it must not compromise on legal reasoning or transparency. Where an arbitral tribunal fails to apply settled legal principles, particularly in matters involving statutory provisions such as Section 74 of the Contract Act, the courts retain the authority to intervene and restore the balance of justice.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s decision underscores that arbitral tribunals are obligated to provide detailed and cogent reasons when denying contractual claims, especially in cases involving liquidated damages. This judgment maintains a fine equilibrium between minimal judicial interference and ensuring that arbitral awards meet the standards of legal scrutiny and procedural fairness. It sets a precedent that while courts will generally uphold arbitral awards, they will not hesitate to intervene when awards are passed in an arbitrary or legally flawed manner. The recognition of the right to reasoned decisions within arbitral forums enhances the overall credibility of the arbitration process in India.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.