Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act deals with the court setting aside an arbitral award in exceptional cases and involves several binding restrictions as well. The court limits its interference to ensure that the section is not misused. A case under section 34 ought to be extraordinary in nature and shocks the conscience of the court.

Recently, a lot of cases filed in arbitrational disputes have challenged the sanctity of Section 34. These are some noticeable trends:

If a case filed for review scrutinizes the appearing party obligatory of valid filing and to respect the time being granted by the court. If the case is filed without the copy of the essential documents such as vakalatnama, copy of the impugned arbitral award or consisting of several other defects concerning the statement of truth it is referred as non-est filing by the court. (NHAI v. Patel-KNR (JV), M.P.(COMM) 416 of 2018, Delhi High Court)

If new facts are introduced in front of the court which were not presented prima facie in front of the tribunal cannot be considered valid. Supposedly, the facts form a complete new case which does not relate to the foundations laid back in the original petition. Hence in such a case scenario, the court withdraws its interference and thus the proposed amendments to set aside the arbitral award would be against the interest of justice. (New Delhi Municipal Council versus Decor India Pvt Ltd 2023, Delhi High Court)

Filing the same case under section 34 based on the same facts, which has already been refuted by other subordinate courts, cannot be reviewed. The case can only be reviewed in the exceptional case where something has been overlooked or ignored. Similarly, the petitioner is refrained from building a false premise to render a new finding in the case. It is pertinent to mention here that an appeal which was filed under Section 34 and rejected, cannot be filed under Section 37 for review since the matter which is beyond the scope of Section 34 does not fall under the interpretation of Section 37. Moreover, interfering with Section 37 would straight up imply interference with the previously impugned order. (Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Narinder Kumar2023, Delhi High Court)

Strengthening the argument of non-interference, the courts do not hold the power to remit back the matter to a sole arbitrator for a fresh consideration once the award has already been set aside. Once the award is set aside, Section 34 (4) does not mention any applicability further. Though the matter can be remitted to an arbitrator during the pendency of the case under Section 34 upon a written application by the party but once the decision has been upheld, the question of remitting the matter does not arise. (M/s. Sri Rama Constructions V Max Infra Ltd 2023, Telangana High Court).

It is significant to note that there still lies ambiguity in the Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An arbitral award being challenged should not be misused in a way that it wastes the time of the court and disrespects the impugned arbitral award. Hence, even stricter should be introduced to limit the interference of the court so that efficient decisions can be taken within the ambit of Arbitration.