Arbitral award set aside for want of evidence, inadequate reasons, and failure to address material defence in Section 34 review

A Section 34 challenge to an arbitral award was treated as within limitation because the reimbursement claim arose when the additional tax burden crossed the contractual threshold, and the related dispute process was pursued in sequence. The award was then found vulnerable because it rested on no evidence of actual enhanced-tax payment, no proof of compliance with the contractual threshold and deduction mechanism, and no proper substantiation for later financial years. It also failed to deal with the material defence and relevant notifications, so the court regarded it as unsupported by reasons and marked by patent illegality and perversity. The award was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside for being unsupported by evidence, unreasoned, and for ignoring the defence raised in the statement of defence.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim for reimbursement arose when the additional tax burden accumulated and crossed the contractual threshold, and the Court accepted the finding that the cause of action had arisen in 2010. The subsequent claim notice and rejection followed within the contractual dispute-resolution sequence. On that basis, the challenge was held to be within time.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside for being unsupported by evidence, unreasoned, and for ignoring the defence raised in the statement of defence.

Analysis: The contractual mechanism required proof of additional cost and reimbursement only after proper determination. The Court found no evidence of actual payment of tax at enhanced rates, no proof of compliance with the contractual threshold and deduction mechanism, and no material showing that the claim for the later financial years was properly substantiated. It further found that the award contained no meaningful discussion of the material relied upon, did not disclose reasons adequate to support the grant, and failed to deal with the notifications and other objections raised in the defence. An award based on no evidence and lacking reasons was treated as perverse and falling within patent illegality.

Conclusion: The award was held liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the arbitral award was annulled, and the proceedings stood concluded.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award is vulnerable under Section 34 when it is rendered without evidence, without intelligible reasons, and without consideration of a material defence, as such an award amounts to patent illegality and perversity.

---