Patel Engineering Ltd. v. North Eastern Power Corporation Ltd

Judgment Name : Patel Engineering Ltd. v. North Eastern Power Corporation Ltd

Citation : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 466

Coram : R. Banumathi, Indu Malhotra, Aniruddha Bose

Date : 3rd June 2020

Overview :

The current case related to the standard of patent illegality and is a landmark judgment in terms of determining the scope with respect to the same. Various past case laws with respect to Section 34 of the Act and the effect of the 2015 amendment on patent illegality were discussed.

Facts :

The sole arbitrator in this case passed three arbitral awards with respect to the interpretation of a contract and held in favour of the Petitioner. The Respondent aggrieved by this decision of the arbitrator filed three applications before the Additional Deputy Commissioner in Shillong challenging the awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The Commissioner upheld all three awards which lead to the Respondent filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act before the High Court of Shillong. The High Court set aside the three award. After this an SLP was filed in the Supreme Court was dismissed. Then a review petition in the High Court was preferred by the petitioners which lead to the same result as earlier. Thus, the Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.


  1. Whether the current SLP was maintainable?
  2. Whether the 2015 Amendment is applicable to the current case?
  3. Whether the decision of the High Court was erroneous in view of precedent that was not good in law?


It was challenged by the Respondents in the current case that the SLP was not maintainable. The Court after hearing arguments from both side simply said it was not necessary to go into a question of maintainability. It was noted that the previous time when the SLP was not admitted, no review petition had been filed before the High Court.

With respect to the second issue, the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.[i] was cited to state that Section 34 would apply to Section 34 petitions that are made after 23.10.2015. In the current case, the awards and the applications before the Judicial Commissioner were filed after said date and hence, the provisions of the 2015 Amendment Act would apply.

Next, with respect to the ground of patent illegality under Section 34(2)A, the Court discussed its jurisprudential history and the wider shift in interpretation from ONGC v. Saw Pipes[ii] which relied more on a ‘public policy argument’ to BCCI where the Court held that an award would be “patently illegal”, if it is contrary to the substantive provisions of law; or, provisions of the 1996 Act; or, terms of the contract. Then the judgment of Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority[iii] and Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)[iv] were discussed to state that the new ‘patent illegality’ standard would apply to awards where the contracts were construed in a manner that no reasonable person would take. Further the 246th Law Commission Report was discussed where Ssangyong Engineering was taken into account while formulating the new ground with respect to the 2015 Amendment Act.

Finally, the argument of ONGC v. Saw Pipes and Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Western Geco International Limited v. Western Geco limited[v] judgments being cited despite being bad law was taken into account by the Court. It was stated that the final conclusion arrived by the High Court was with respect to the ground that the arbitral award was perverse and that the view taken by the arbitrator was perverse. It was held that the High Court followed the test laid down in Associate Builders and Ssangyong correctly and thus, there was no need for interfering.


This judgment reaffirms the principle that a challenge for patent illegality under Section 34-2A can be made only when the arbitrator comes to an award through a reasoning that is so perverse that a reasonable person could not come to such conclusion.

[i] MANU/SC/0256/2018

[ii] MANU/SC/0314/2003

[iii] MANU/SC/1076/2014

[iv] MANU/SC/0705/2019

[v] MANU/SC/0772/2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s