AMIT ENGINEERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Setting Aside Arbitral Award - Undue Delay, Lack of Hearing, and Arbitrator's Misconduct Justify Annulment Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:24764
Decision Date: 08-12-2025
List of Laws
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Principles of Natural Justice
- Facts: M/s. Amit Engineers, a government contractor for the Railways, challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The sole arbitrator rejected all claims raised by the Petitioner concerning an 'Annual Maintenance Contract of RMPUs'. The arbitration was invoked in 2014, and the arbitrator was appointed in 2015. After limited hearings, the arbitrator made the award in 2021, after the petitioner sought substitution of the arbitrator due to delays.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a Commercial Arbitration Petition challenging the award. During the pendency of this petition, the court appointed a former Judge as the sole arbitrator in a separate petition (No. 814 of 2024) to adjudicate the disputes. The current petition is to set aside the initial arbitral award.
- Issue: Was the arbitral award liable to be set aside due to inordinate delay in its pronouncement, especially considering the arbitrator was informed of the termination of his mandate and the award was made without conducting a proper hearing?
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the arbitral award was liable to be set aside.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the arbitrator's delay was unexplained and that the award was made without a proper hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The arbitrator was aware of the petitioner's request for substitution and the filing of a petition for the same. The court relied on Lancor Holdings Limited V/s. Prem Kumar Menon and Others, emphasizing that undue delay can vitiate an award, especially when it remains unexplained and affects the findings. The court also noted the arbitrator's misrepresentation of the number of hearings conducted and the false pretext of the Covid-19 pandemic to justify the delay. The court concluded that the arbitrator acted under the direction of the General Manager, compromising his independence.
🔒 For Members Only