Arbitrator view sacrosanct, should not be substituted with alternate opinion of court on review of evidence: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently held that an arbitrator’s view is sacrosanct and should not be substituted with an alternate opinion that a court may possibly have on re-appreciation of evidence. [Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd v. Steer Overseas Pvt Ltd].Justice Shekhar B Saraf made the observation while dealing with a case concerning a foreign arbitral award..The judge ruled that a court should not substitute its own view for the arbitrator's view or venture beyond a preliminary determination of the matter unless it is manifestly evident that there existed no arbitral agreement. "In my view, this court should tread carefully while undertaking the task of determining whether there was a concluded contract along-with an arbitration clause, specifically when the arbitrator has decided on it," the order stated..Justice Saraf further observed that a court's discretion in such matters was limited. The Court proceeded to decline in interfering with the arbitral award in the present case, after noting that is not a case where there was "no concluded contract" or no arbitration agreement. .The respondent (award debtor) before the Court had argued against the enforcement of a foreign award passed under the International Arbitration Act of Singapore, wherein the arbitral proceedings had been conducted in consonance with the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.The respondent argued that there did not exist a valid arbitration agreement between the parties as there was no meeting of minds between them..The High Court noted that, in the award, the arbitrator had come to the conclusion that there existed an agreement along with an arbitration clause.In this background, Justice Saraf opined that the Court must tread carefully while determining the existence of the arbitral agreement. "My task of adjudication must be completed while keeping in mind the constraints imposed by law while exercising discretion under Section 48 of the Act, which are to ensure that the court does not (i) re-appreciate evidence, (ii) substitute its own view with that of the arbitrator or (iii) review the matter again.".The judge further noted that to refuse the enforcement of an arbitral award, there must be express evidence to indicate that there was no concluded contract between the parties and that the arbitrator has gone completely amiss in his duty..Additionally, it was observed that in this case, it was not a simple situation wherein the inquiry was limited to deciding whether there was an agreement. Rather the question concerned which correspondences constituted an agreement between the parties. "The difference between the two is a thin line, but is of great significance. Once the latter is decided by the arbitrator, the parties between whom the agreement existed becomes manifest. This decision should not, in my opinion, be tinkered with," the Court said..Thus, the objections raised by the respondent were rejected and the Court held that the award was enforceable and executable as a decree of the High Court..Senior Advocate Tilak Bose along with Advocates K Thaker and Anurag Bagaria appeared for the petitioners. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Joy Saha and Advocates Anuj Singh, Rashhmi Singhee, Aman Agarwal, Trinisha De and Siddhartha Roy..[Read Order]