Arbitral delay and unresolved awards can trigger patent illegality, public policy concerns, and final relief under complete justice principles.

Undue delay in pronouncing an arbitral award is not, by itself, a statutory ground for setting aside the award; it matters only where the unexplained delay materially affects the findings or outcome, in which event the award may be vulnerable for public policy conflict or patent illegality under Section 34. An award that does not finally resolve the referred disputes, leaves the controversy open, and forces renewed litigation after altering the parties' positions is said to defeat arbitration and be liable to be set aside as patently illegal and contrary to public policy. Where restoration is impracticable and complete justice requires finality, Article 142 may be invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether undue and unexplained delay in pronouncing an arbitral award, by itself, vitiates the award. (ii) Whether an arbitral award that fails to finally resolve the disputes and leaves the parties to commence fresh litigation, after irrevocably altering their positions, is liable to be set aside and whether Article 142 can be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether undue and unexplained delay in pronouncing an arbitral award, by itself, vitiates the award.

Analysis: Delay in pronouncement is not an independent statutory ground for setting aside an award. The validity of a delayed award depends on whether the delay has an adverse impact on the findings and outcome of the arbitration. Where the delay is unexplained and its effect is plainly reflected in the award, the award may attract the grounds of conflict with public policy and patent illegality. A prior approach under Section 14(2) is not a condition precedent to challenge such an award under Section 34.

Conclusion: Delay by itself does not vitiate the award, but an unexplained delay that materially affects the decision can render the award vulnerable under Section 34.

Issue (ii): Whether an arbitral award that fails to finally resolve the disputes and leaves the parties to commence fresh litigation, after irrevocably altering their positions, is liable to be set aside and whether Article 142 can be invoked.

Analysis: An arbitral award must meaningfully resolve the disputes referred for adjudication. An award that leaves the controversy unresolved, shifts the parties' positions irrevocably, and compels renewed litigation defeats the object of arbitration. Such an award is patently illegal and contrary to public policy. Where restoration of the original position is no longer feasible and complete justice requires closure, Article 142 may be invoked to bring finality to the dispute.

Conclusion: Such an award is liable to be set aside as patently illegal and opposed to public policy, and Article 142 can be invoked where the facts justify complete justice.

Final Conclusion: The award was unsustainable, but instead of remitting the parties into another round of litigation, the Court finally settled the dispute by granting equitable relief and bringing the controversy to an end.

Ratio Decidendi: A delayed arbitral award is not invalid merely because of delay, but it becomes vulnerable when the delay is unexplained and demonstrably distorts the adjudication; likewise, an award that fails to finally decide the disputes and frustrates the object of arbitration is liable to be set aside as patently illegal and contrary to public policy.

---