Justice Raveendran also raised concerns over inconsistent Supreme Court rulings on arbitration.
We do not have one single Supreme Court.
Justice Raveendran particularly flagged the widening use of “patent illegality” as a ground to interfere with arbitral awards.
However, Supreme Court was repeatedly changing the limits of permissible intervention in arbitral awards.
This affected lower courts, arbitral tribunals and every party who has entered into an arbitration agreement, Justice Raveendran said.
Justice Raveendran also raised concerns over inconsistent Supreme Court rulings on arbitration. He said
“We have 37 judges. We have 17 benches. We do not have one single Supreme Court. We have 17 Supreme Courts.”
He said outcomes could depend on the Bench before which a case was placed, adding that changes in legal position by different Benches were causing problems.
Justice Raveendran particularly flagged the widening use of “patent illegality” as a ground to interfere with arbitral awards. He said that under a strict approach, interference should arise only in exceptional situations.
However, Supreme Court was repeatedly changing the limits of permissible intervention in arbitral awards. This affected lower courts, arbitral tribunals and every party who has entered into an arbitration agreement, Justice Raveendran said.
"It causes chaos and confusion and uncertainty" he remarked.
At the same time, he said courts alone could not be blamed for judicial interference. Arbitrators too had to improve the quality of their awards.
“If we want courts to exercise restraint, we must also ask the arbitral tribunals to act with more responsibility.”
He said tribunals must follow contractual terms, consider material evidence, address important submissions and give proper reasons.
