The Calcutta High Court recently emphasized the sanctity of an arbitrator's view and the limited role of a court in substituting it with an alternate opinion. The observation was made by Justice Shekhar B Saraf in a case involving a foreign arbitral award.
According to the judge, a court should exercise caution when determining the existence of a concluded contract along with an arbitration clause, particularly when the arbitrator has already made a decision on the matter. The court should not interfere unless it is manifestly evident that no arbitral agreement exists.
Justice Saraf noted that the court's discretion in such matters is restricted. In the present case, the court declined to interfere with the arbitral award as there was no "no concluded contract" or absence of an arbitration agreement.
The respondent in the case argued against the enforcement of a foreign award under the International Arbitration Act of Singapore. The respondent claimed that there was no valid arbitration agreement due to a lack of mutual agreement between the parties.
The High Court observed that the arbitrator had concluded in the award that there was an agreement along with an arbitration clause.
Justice Saraf opined that the court must carefully determine the existence of the arbitral agreement, considering the constraints imposed by law. The court should avoid re-appreciating evidence, substituting its own view for that of the arbitrator, or reviewing the matter again.
To refuse enforcement of an arbitral award, there must be explicit evidence demonstrating the absence of a concluded contract and a serious failure on the part of the arbitrator.
Furthermore, the court noted that the issue at hand was not a simple inquiry into the existence of an agreement but rather determining which correspondences constituted an agreement between the parties. Once the arbitrator decides on this, the parties involved become evident, and the court should not interfere with this decision.
Therefore, the respondent's objections were rejected, and the court held that the award was enforceable and executable as a decree of the High Court.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Tilak Bose along with Advocates K Thaker and Anurag Bagaria, while the respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Joy Saha and Advocates Anuj Singh, Rashhmi Singhee, Aman Agarwal, Trinisha De, and Siddhartha Roy.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Calcutta High Court arbitrator's view alternate opinion foreign arbitral award Justice Shekhar B Saraf court's discretion manifestly evident arbitral agreement enforcement of award International Arbitration Act Singapore meeting of minds treading carefully re-appreciate evidence thin line objections rejected enforceable Senior Advocate Tilak Bose Senior Advocate Joy Saha.
