Summary
The Court upheld refusal to remit an arbitral award under Section 34(4). That provision permits an opportunity to supply reasons or fill gaps supporting findings already made, but cannot cure the absence of a finding on a contentious issue by having the arbitrator make a new decision or alter the award. The challenged award lacked a finding on illegal termination, while the opponent also alleged disregard of material evidence of accord and satisfaction. Those defects were for the court considering the pending Section 34 challenge. The appeal concerned refusal of remission, rather than final disposal of that challenge.
Issues
- Whether Section 34(4) permitted remission to supply a missing finding on a contentious issue.
- Whether a party’s request made remission obligatory.
Provisions considered
- Section 34(4), read with Sections 31, 34(1) and 34(2A), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Remission was discretionary and could cure inadequate reasons for existing findings, but not a missing contentious-issue finding or a defect requiring alteration of the award. (¶ 16-21)
Held
- A finding decides an issue; reasons link the evidence to that decision. Section 34(4) can permit reasons to be supplied or gaps filled in support of a finding already rendered, but the absence of a finding on a contentious issue is a different defect. (¶ 19-21)
- The award lacked a finding on whether the contract had been illegally and abruptly terminated. The opponent also alleged that material communications proving accord and satisfaction had been ignored. These grounds required consideration by the Section 34 court rather than remission under the guise of elaborating reasons. (¶¶ 18, 20-21)
- The words permitting remission where appropriate confer discretion. A court must consider both the setting-aside grounds and the remission request and response; filing a request alone does not compel remission. (¶ 21)
- Remission cannot transfer the court’s setting-aside function to the arbitrator or authorise alteration of an award already made. Reconsidering previously ignored evidence to reach a contrary accord-and-satisfaction conclusion would cross that boundary. (¶ 21)
- The decisions allowing cure of deficient reasons were distinguishable because they concerned reasons supporting findings already made. The High Court’s refusal of remission was therefore affirmed; the appeal did not finally determine the pending setting-aside petition. (¶¶ 4, 19-22)
Result
Appeal dismissed; refusal of Section 34(4) remission affirmed; no order as to costs.