Arenel Private Limited v. Aakash Packaging
Scope of Judicial Interference in International Commercial Arbitration: Application of Doctrine of Severability to Partially Set Aside Awards and the Consequences of Disregarding Admitted Evidence.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:6126-DB
Decision Date: 09-03-2026
List of Laws
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Doctrine of Severability; Public Policy of India; Patent Illegality
- Facts: The appellant, a Zimbabwean company, entered into an agreement with the respondent-Firm for the supply of packaging materials. Out of five consignments, the appellant alleged that materials under two invoices emitted a foul odour, and the material under the fifth invoice (for which USD 43,500.25 was paid) was never supplied. The appellant relied on laboratory reports from SGS Germany and expert testimony to prove the defects, while the respondent relied on reports from SGS India which found the samples compliant with safety limits. An Arbitrator awarded the refund of payments and costs to the appellant, finding the goods defective and the non-supply proven. The respondent challenged this under Section 34, where a Single Judge set aside the entire Award, citing the Arbitrator's failure to consider the SGS India reports as admitted evidence and reliance on hearsay expert testimony.
- Procedural Posture: This is a Commercial Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the judgment of the Single Judge who had set aside the arbitral Award in a Section 34 petition.
- Issue: 1. Whether the Arbitrator's rejection of admitted documentary evidence (SGS India reports) and reliance on hearsay evidence amounted to patent illegality or a violation of the most basic notions of justice. 2. Whether the Court has the power to partially set aside or modify an arbitral Award by severing a valid, independent claim from an invalid one.
- Holding: The Court held that the portion of the Award regarding defective goods was rightly set aside due to patent illegality in evidentiary findings. However, the claim for refund of USD 43,500.25 for non-supplied goods was distinct and valid. The Court partially allowed the appeal, restoring the Award only to the extent of the refund for non-supply.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while the strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to arbitration, the fundamental principles of law and natural justice cannot be ignored. The Arbitrator committed a "patent illegality" by rejecting the SGS India reports, which were admitted documents, and by reversing the burden of proof. Such findings were perverse and shocked the conscience of the Court. Regarding the power of modification, the Court applied the "doctrine of severability", noting that Section 34 allows for partial setting aside if the claims are legally and practically separable. The claim for non-supply of the fifth consignment was entirely unconnected to the dispute over the quality of other batches. Denying the power to sever and maintain the valid portion of an Award would lead to unnecessary delays and defeat the purpose of arbitration as an efficient dispute resolution mechanism.
🔒 For Members Only