Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is patent illegality made out where an award's conclusion is not supported by the arbitrator's own findings?

Yes. The scope of interference under Section 34, and consequently Section 37, of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence, but where the award suffers from patent illegality apparent on its face, or where the conclusions reached are not supported by the findings or reasons recorded by the arbitrator, the Court is justified in exercising its jurisdiction under the Act.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — s.37 — Patent illegality — Award inconsistent with arbitrator's own finding — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — Scope of interference — Findings not supported by reasons — Held: Interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and consequently under Section 37, is confined to patent illegality on the face of the award or conclusions unsupported by the arbitrator's own findings; the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. (¶15) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — Domestic water use finding — Liability under revised tariff category unexplained — Held further: Where the arbitrator found that 90% of water supplied was for domestic use and only 10% for industrial use, yet held the consumer liable at the "Other Beneficiaries" tariff without explaining why the domestic-use finding became irrelevant after the revised classification, the award's conclusion is not supported by its own findings and the inconsistency goes to the root of the award. (¶14, 16) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.34 — Clause (C) of award — Patent illegality — Partial setting aside — Held further: Such an unexplained inconsistency amounts to patent illegality apparent on the face of the award, and the order under Section 34 confirming that clause of the award cannot be sustained; Clause (C) of the award is set aside while Clauses (A), (B) and (D) and the order of the Single Judge are confirmed. Appeal partly allowed. (¶17, 18)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/s. V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India