Case Analysis: Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705
Introduction
The Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. judgment given by the Supreme Court of India in 2003 is arguably the most important case in the history of Indian arbitration law. The case is perhaps most famous for expanding the horizon of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Before the ruling, adage was that the courts must not intervene with arbitral awards except in very narrow grounds. But in this instance, the Court brought the tainted doctrine of “patent illegality” as another basis for setting aside an award, thus significantly enhancing Indian courts’ power in matters of arbitration.
Background and Facts
The controversy was between the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), a government-owned undertaking, and Saw Pipes Ltd., a contractor hired by ONGC for supplying casing pipes. Saw Pipes had agreed to deliver the goods within a specific time period, but the delivery was delayed due to reasons which it said were outside its control, specifically delays due to a foreign supplier.
ONGC withheld liquidated damages from the payment under the pretext of delay in supply, as allowed under the agreement. Saw Pipes filed arbitration proceedings, and the arbitrator held in its favor, holding that ONGC was not justified in deducting damages since the delay was not on the part of the supplier but due to circumstances beyond its control. The arbitrator also directed ONGC to pay interest on the wrongfully deducted amount.
ONGC petitioned against the arbitral award in the Bombay High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where an award can be set aside on specific grounds of incapacity, invalid agreement, non-receipt of proper notice, or contravention of public policy. But the High Court confirmed the award, prompting ONGC to approach the Supreme Court in appeal.
Issues Raised
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether an arbitral award can be set aside on the basis that it is “patently illegal”? More precisely, the Court had to consider:
- Whether a court could reappreciate evidence and facts when determining the validity of an arbitral award.
- Whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract was final and binding, or whether it could be subject to review by a court to determine correctness.
- Whether or not a mistake in the application of law by the arbitrator was a violation of public policy of India, as stipulated under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
Judgment
The Supreme Court, in a majority judgment rendered by Justice S.N. Variava, held that the award made by the arbitrator was susceptible to being set aside on the ground that it was illegal on the face of the record and against the express terms of the contract.
While doing so, the Court considerably broadened the scope of “public policy” under Section 34. The Court held that an arbitral award would be against public policy if:
- It is against the basic policy of Indian law.
- It is contrary to the interests of India.
- It is contrary to justice or morality.
- It is manifestly illegal.
The Court explained that “patent illegality” is more than a mere factual or legal error — it constitutes a blatant and apparent error that goes to the essence of the matter, e.g., disregarding the provisions of the contract, granting relief not prayed for, or misapplying established principles of law. In the instant case, the arbitrator was deaf to the clear terms of the contract which specifically permitted ONGC to deduct delay damages for late delivery, regardless of the reason for delay.
The Court held that if an award is suffering from patent illegality, the award cannot be enforced in India because it would be enforcing an award against Indian public policy.
Significance of the Judgment
ONGC v. Saw Pipes is one such landmark case with Indian arbitration jurisprudence, albeit on its disputed side. It marked a significant departure from the widely accepted international principle of non-intervention by courts in arbitral awards, especially regarding matters of fact and contract interpretation.
By authorizing courts to set aside awards for patent illegality, the Supreme Court provided wide discretion to Indian courts to examine arbitral awards on substantive grounds. This enhanced judicial control prejudiced the finality and efficiency of arbitration by causing frequent challenges and delay in enforcement.
Despite this, the judgment had practical merits. It made sure that arbitrators followed the strict terms of the contract and provisions of law, and that public authorities such as ONGC were not unduly loaded with unfair awards. It also gave jurisdiction to courts to preclude enforcement of awards that were unfair, irrational, or contravened contractual terms.
Criticism and Subsequent Developments
The ruling was severely criticized by the arbitration world, particularly foreign investors and arbitration professionals, who viewed the over-judicialization as watering down the efficacy of arbitration as a mechanism for alternative dispute resolution in India. The amorphous and subjective definition of “patent illegality” resulted in divergent application by different High Courts and thus created uncertainty in arbitration law.
For these issues, the 2015 Amendment Act to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act drew an important distinction between awards in domestic and international commercial arbitration. In the case of international commercial arbitrations having their seat in India, the courts were prohibited from setting aside awards on grounds of patent illegality. The purpose of this was to safeguard foreign investors and ensure that India is a credible arbitration center.
But for domestic arbitrations, the ground of patent illegality can stand valid, subject to judicial interpretation.
Conclusion
The ONGC v. Saw Pipes case is a milestone in Indian law of arbitration for incorporating the doctrine of patent illegality as a basis for setting aside an arbitral award. Though the intention of the judgment was to avoid injustice and protect the sanctity of contracts, it greatly enhanced the extent of judicial intervention in arbitration. The judgment has also resulted in increased debate over a balance between minimal intervention and judicial supervision over the years. While partly rectified by later legislative changes, the impact of Saw Pipes is still seen in Indian arbitration and makes it a milestone case in the analysis of the interface between arbitration and judicial review.
Author Bio
