How to Challenge an Arbitral Award Under Section 34: A Step-by-Step Guide for Practitioners

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides limited grounds on which an arbitral award may be set aside by a court. Given the legislative policy favouring minimal judicial intervention in arbitration, understanding both the scope and the procedure is critical for practitioners.

**I. GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE**

Section 34(2) permits challenge on the following grounds:

(a) *Party-related incapacity*: The parties to the arbitration agreement were under some incapacity.

(b) *Invalid agreement*: The arbitration agreement is not valid under the applicable law.

(c) *Inadequate notice*: The party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings.

(d) *Excess of mandate*: The award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration.

(e) *Composition or procedure*: The composition of the arbitral tribunal or procedure was not in accordance with the parties' agreement.

(f) *Non-arbitrability*: The subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law.

(g) *Public policy*: The award conflicts with the public policy of India — which, after the 2015 amendment, is confined to fraud, corruption and violations of the most basic notions of morality and justice.

**II. THE CRITICAL TIMELINE**

Section 34(3) prescribes a limitation period of three months from the date of receipt of the arbitral award. The court has power to condone delay of a further 30 days on sufficient cause — but not beyond. The Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra vs M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers (2021) confirmed this outer limit is absolute.

**III. THE PATIL TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE**

Applications under Section 34 are filed before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction at the seat of arbitration (or the High Court if designated). The application must be accompanied by the original award or a certified copy.

**IV. RECENT JURISPRUDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS**

The Supreme Court in NTPC vs SPML Infra (2023) reiterated the "minimal curial intervention" principle, holding that courts must resist the temptation to re-examine the merits of the dispute under the guise of public policy review.