When does a wrong decision become illegal? More importantly, can a court set aside an arbitral award simply because it disagrees with the arbitrator?
In this episode, we explore the doctrine of Patent Illegality and understand how Indian arbitration law has evolved from protecting contracts to protecting the finality of arbitral awards. Rather than treating case law as isolated judgments, we follow the journey of the doctrine and the reasoning behind each landmark decision.
The episode discusses the evolution of Patent Illegality through:
1. ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. – Introduction of Patent Illegality as a ground of challenge.
2. Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority – Limits of judicial interference, perversity and the Possible View Doctrine.
3. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Introduction of Section 34(2A) and statutory recognition of Patent Illegality.
4. Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI – Narrowing the scope of judicial review after the 2015 Amendment.
5. Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Authority – Reaffirming that courts cannot reassess merits, rewrite contracts, or interfere merely because another interpretation appears preferable.
In this episode, you'll understand:
1. Why Patent Illegality was introduced
2. The difference between review and appeal
3. Why courts do not re-appreciate evidence
4. The relationship between Patent Illegality and the Possible View Doctrine
5. How the Supreme Court's approach has evolved from Saw Pipes to Jan De Nul
Because arbitration is not about finding the perfect decision—it is about ensuring that the decision remains within the boundaries of law.
