Alternative Remedies No Longer Bar Writs Writ Jurisdiction in the Indian Constitution has been borrowed from the concept of prerogative writs under English Law and was vested in the Chartered High Courts prior to commencement of Constitution. The framers of the Constitution adopted the concept of writs and funnelled such powers to fruitfully enforce the fundamental rights... Read More
In OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 INSC 711, the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute involved unpaid dues and counterclaims related to project delays and customs duties. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of Enexio, ordering OPG and its holding company, Gita Power, to pay outstanding amounts. OPG’s challenge under Section 34 led to the award being set aside by a single judge of the High Court, but a division bench reinstated it. The Supreme Court upheld the award, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with awards that are reasoned and free from perversity. It clarified that when arbitral awards are intelligible and sufficiently reasoned, they should stand, and only awards with flawed, unintelligible, or inadequate reasons may be set aside. In this case, the Court found the award sufficiently reasoned, reinstating it and dismissing OPG’s counterclaims, thus affirming the limited scope of judicial review in arbitration matters.