The Legal Issue
The core legal issue before the Delhi High Court was whether a petitioner, who was a claimant in arbitration, could challenge both a majority arbitral award that rejected all their claims and a minority award that, while granting some relief, did not fully satisfy their claims. The petitioner sought to set aside the majority award and also challenged the minority award to the extent it rejected certain claims.
Court's Reasoning
The Delhi High Court, in *Ms Abhoy Charan Bakshi vs National Highways Authority Of India*, implicitly affirmed the petitioner's right to challenge both the majority and minority awards. The Court entertained the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the petitioner assailed both the majority award, which resulted in a 'nil' award against them, and the minority award, which directed the respondent to pay a specific sum but presumably less than what was claimed. This demonstrates that an aggrieved party is not restricted to challenging only the 'final' or 'majority' award if a minority award also contains elements adverse to their interests or does not grant the full relief sought.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for arbitration practice as it clarifies the scope of challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It confirms that a party is entitled to challenge any part of an arbitral tribunal's decision that is unfavorable to them, irrespective of whether it emanates from a majority or minority opinion. This ensures that litigants have a full opportunity to seek redress against any adverse findings or rejections of claims within the arbitral process, preventing a situation where a party might be forced to accept a partially favourable minority award if it still falls short of their entitlements. This approach promotes a comprehensive review of arbitral decisions where multiple opinions exist.