Bombay High Court Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award, Rules Arbitrator Cannot Act on 'Whims' or Ignore Contractual Terms

MUMBAI: In a significant ruling that reinforces the boundaries of an arbitrator's authority, the Bombay High Court has dismissed cross-appeals filed by Larsen & Tourbo Limited (L&T) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), thereby upholding a Single Judge's decision to substantially set aside a ₹7.43 crore arbitral award. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne , held that an arbitrator, even one with technical expertise, cannot award claims based on personal knowledge, guesswork, or equity when such an award contravenes the express terms of a contract or is made in the absence of evidence.

The judgment brings to a close a protracted legal battle stemming from a 1996 contract for laying a 350-kilometer pipeline from Vishakhapatnam to Vijaywada.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from a contract awarded by HPCL to L&T in 1996 for a pipeline project valued at over ₹53 crore. Disputes arose over payments for alleged additional work, delays, and other issues, leading L&T to invoke arbitration in 2000. In 2003, the sole arbitrator, a General Manager from HPCL, awarded L&T ₹7.43 crore against its total claim of over ₹27 crore.

Aggrieved by the award, HPCL challenged it before a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In 2005, the Single Judge set aside most of the claims awarded to L&T, finding them to be contrary to the contract or unsubstantiated by evidence. The judge, however, upheld the award for Claim No. 19, which related to the partial release of an amount withheld by HPCL as liquidated damages for project delays.

This led to cross-appeals before the Division Bench: L&T challenged the setting aside of its claims, while HPCL contested the upholding of the liquidated damages claim.

Arguments Before the Division Bench

Larsen & Tourbo's Stance: L&T, represented by Advocate Kedar Wagle, argued that the Single Judge had overstepped the limited jurisdiction under Section 34 by re-appreciating evidence and interfering with the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract. It was contended that since the parties had chosen a technical expert as an arbitrator, he was entitled to use his domain knowledge to decide the claims, and his award should not be set aside merely because a court holds a different view.

Hindustan Petroleum's Stance: Advocate Javeed Hussein, appearing for HPCL, countered that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the contract's fundamental terms. He argued that many of the awarded claims were for "excepted matters" where the decision of the designated Engineer-in-Charge was explicitly final and binding. Furthermore, HPCL asserted that the arbitrator had awarded substantial sums based on "mere guesswork" and "whims" without any supporting evidence, rendering the award perverse and patently illegal.

Court's Reasoning and Key Findings

The Division Bench meticulously analyzed each contested claim and concluded that the Single Judge was correct in setting aside the bulk of the award. The court found that the arbitrator had repeatedly committed jurisdictional errors.

A pivotal issue was the arbitrator's decision to award compensation for claims despite finding them contractually inadmissible or lacking evidence. For instance, regarding a claim for additional work (Claim No. 1), the arbitrator first noted that the valuation by the Engineer-in-Charge was "fair and reasonable" but then proceeded to award a higher amount based on his own technical assessment, directly contravening a contractual clause making the Engineer-in-Charge's decision final.

The Court observed, "...the Arbitrator substitutes himself into the chair of the Engineer and determines the quantum of work and rates applicable. In our view, Arbitrator has clearly acted contrary to the Clause 5j of the GCC and the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the award in respect of Claim No. 1."

Similarly, on a major claim of ₹4.13 crore for repairing pipe coatings (Claim No. 2), the arbitrator blamed HPCL for a "wrong design choice" but also found that L&T had failed to produce evidence of expenses incurred. The court deemed the award of a lump-sum amount in such circumstances as unsustainable.

The Bench firmly rejected the argument that an arbitrator's technical expertise grants them a license to ignore contractual provisions or the need for evidence.

"Mere technical background of the Arbitrator would not empower him to award claims contrary to the contractual terms and/or in absence of any evidence on record," the judgment stated.

Decision on Liquidated Damages and Final Order

The Court, however, dismissed HPCL's appeal concerning Claim No. 19. The arbitrator had reduced the liquidated damages levied by HPCL, finding that the pipeline was functionally commissioned on May 11, 1998, when HPCL began pumping its product, even though the formal completion certificate was issued later on August 20, 1998. The Bench noted that HPCL had failed to specifically challenge this crucial finding of fact before the Single Judge, thereby leaving no room for interference.

Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed, and the Single Judge's order from 2005 was upheld in its entirety. The judgment underscores the principle that while judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited, courts will not hesitate to set aside awards that are patently illegal, perverse, or where the arbitrator has clearly exceeded their contractual mandate.