Award Must Resolve, Not Recycle Disputes : SC on Arbitrator’s Indecisiveness
Respondents – brothers and owners of the land – had Joint Development Agreement dated 17.12.2004 and Supplementary Agreement was executed on 17/18.12.2004.
The core dispute was whether or not the building was completed as per the agreed terms, refusal of refund of security deposits and original sale deed remaining with the HDFCL.
Having given our earnest consideration to the Award, we are of the opinion that the repetitions ad nauseam in the Award and the vacillation by the Arbitrator as to what he should do clearly manifest that he dela on his part contributed to his demonstrable indecisiveness.
The Arbitrator in this case took nearly 4 years to conclude that he had no equitable relief to offer to both parties but held in favour of one side in all respects, leaving it to the parties to start litigation again.
In his Article on Arbitrators and Accuracy, Professor William W Park says that “An arbitrator’s main duty lies not in dictating a peace treaty but in delivery of an accurate award that rests on a reasonable view of what happened and what the law says.
The undue delay and wavering attitude of the Arbitrator, contributing to his rudderless Award, are utterly shocking, to say the least, as he totally lost sight of the very purpose of the exercise.
The Award is liable to be set aside as it is in clear conflict with the public policy of India and is also patently illegal.
Judgment dated 31.10.2025 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.10074-10075 of 2024 of M/s. Lancor Holdings Limited Vs. Prem Kumar Menon and others
