The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Tag: news

  • The Boundaries of Judicial Intervention In Arbitration: Navigating Section 34

    The Boundaries of Judicial Intervention In Arbitration: Navigating Section 34

    BY MANAV PAMNANI, THIRD-YEAR STUDENT AT NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW, HYDERABAD

    Introduction

    Recently, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (‘SC’) in the case Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (‘Gayatri Case’) decided to refer the matter regarding court modification of arbitral awards to a Constitution Bench. This comes in light of the relatively unsettled legal position regarding the power of a court to amend or modify an arbitral award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’). Against the backdrop of multiple conflicting decisions over the course of several years, the judgement in the Gayatri case, which is yet to be pronounced, is expected to settle the position. However, there is a discernible trend that can be observed lately with the majority of court decisions holding that the court does not have this power.

    The epitome of this is the landmark judgement delivered in National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem (‘Hakeem Case’), wherein the SC declared that the court under section 34 has no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award as doing so, will amount to crossing the line (Lakshman Rekha) under the guise of judicial interpretation of statutes. 

    One of the most recent SC decisions that upheld the several precedents mentioned was delivered on 4th January 2024 in the case of S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka. The SC, in this case, held that any attempt to modify or amend an arbitral award while adjudicating section 34 and section 37 petitions is not permissible. A modification can be effected only by the SC in the interests of justice under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, provided such a modification is in tandem with relevant statutory laws.

    The power under section 34 of the Act extends only to the setting aside of an award under the grounds specified in sub-section (2), which include incapacity of the parties, invalid arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, decisions beyond the scope of arbitration, improper tribunal composition or procedure, or if the Court finds the subject matter non-arbitrable or the award in conflict with India’s public policy. With the intention of analysing the intricacies of section 34, this article explores the rationale behind the restriction on court modification, its implications, and potential solutions to address the inherent challenges.

    The Rationale Behind the Restriction on Court Modification

    The most plausible rationale is the express exclusion of such a power from the purview of section 34 of the Act. This power was explicitly included under section 15 and section 16 of the erstwhile Arbitration Act of 1940 but has been omitted under the current statute. As explained in  Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, this reflects the intention of the Legislature to amend the law pertaining to modification. Adopting a contrary approach would undermine the very purpose of excluding this power, making such an interpretation unsound. An analysis of the law in other jurisdictions like England, Singapore, Australia, and the United States reveals that such power has expressly been conferred under the respective statutes, which is not the case in India. Moreover, the purpose of Section 34 is to set aside awards on the basis of procedural or jurisdictional issues, whereas modification involves re-evaluating the substantive merits of the tribunal’s decisions, which deviates from the provision’s principal intention. This reasoning was given in the Hakeem Case mentioned previously, wherein the SC held that section 34 is not like an appellate provision. Considering it to be so is fallacious since it will violate section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, which deals with revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court stated that since the right to get the award set aside is itself very truncated, the enforcement of such a right should also be very limited in nature. The SC further observed that section 34 of the Act aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law,  which confers no modification power to a court hearing a challenge to an award, as well as the legislative policy of minimal judicial interference in arbitral awards.

    A deeper substantive analysis of arbitration’s fundamental tenets also results in the same conclusion. Firstly, arbitration aims to provide a speedy and cost-efficient resolution to disputes, and allowing courts to modify awards would undermine this objective by leading to protracted litigation involving high costs akin to traditional court proceedings. The grant of such a power would also vitiate the core principle of party autonomy,  by allowing external interference in the parties’ agreed-upon process of resolving disputes through chosen arbitrators, thus potentially undermining their autonomy to determine the terms and conditions of the resolution process.

    Additionally, it would be against the interests of efficiency and specialisation to give this power to courts since arbitrators are often chosen for their specific subject matter expertise, and judicial modification could devalue this specialised knowledge, as judges may lack the same expertise level in the given subject matter. Lastly, on a practical level, limiting court intervention to setting aside awards rather than modifying them, helps conserve judicial resources and reduces the burden on the court system. 

    Implications

    The restriction on this power ensures the finality and certainty of arbitral awards, promoting confidence in arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution method. Parties can rely on the arbitral process knowing that awards, once issued, are less susceptible to judicial interference beyond specified grounds for setting aside, which can also be cured by the Tribunal itself under section 34(4) of the Act, thus reinforcing the pro-arbitration approach. This stability enhances the enforceability of arbitral awards, both domestically and internationally, which is crucial for businesses operating in a globalised economy. 

    However, the restriction also presents challenges, particularly in cases where an award contains minor errors or miscalculations that do not warrant setting aside the entire award but still require correction for fairness. Parties may feel aggrieved if they cannot seek judicial correction of such errors, potentially leading to dissatisfaction and increased challenges to awards. Although they have the right to approach the SC for modification under Article 142, this is not feasible if the modification required is not substantial. Moreover, the power under Article 142 is also restricted.

    Thus, the binary approach of either upholding or setting aside the entire award limits available remedies, potentially leaving parties with incorrect or unfair outcomes. This may compel them to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings to rectify errors, increasing costs and delays, and undermining arbitration’s efficiency goals. Furthermore, dissatisfaction with limited recourse may lead to more appeals and litigation, increasing judicial workload and contradicting arbitration’s purpose as a swift and efficient dispute resolution method. Balancing finality with the need for fairness and efficiency remains a critical challenge in the arbitration landscape, necessitating thoughtful reforms and procedural enhancements to address these concerns effectively.

    Potential Solutions

    Legislative clarity through well-drafted guidelines should be achieved through amendments that grant courts limited powers to correct errors in awards. This would align with international practices, allowing selective corrections without compromising award finality. This is the practice in the United Kingdom wherein the power of courts to modify awards is largely restricted to limit judicial intervention and uphold fundamental principles of arbitration. Additionally, emphasising enhanced arbitration agreements can empower parties to include internal review mechanisms, such as appellate arbitration panels or expedited procedures, to address errors or ambiguities. This approach would minimise judicial intervention.

    Opting for a three-member tribunal instead of a sole arbitrator can also improve decision quality and reduce the need for modifications. Moreover, ensuring that arbitrators have relevant expertise is crucial for sound decisions. Judicial guidance should also clearly differentiate between grounds for setting aside an award and situations needing corrections, thus ensuring consistency and transparency in judicial decisions.

    An increased use of section 34(4), allowing the tribunal to make necessary modifications, can also be beneficial since it limits judicial intervention, alongside effectuating the required changes. This balancing act, along with other solutions, if effectively implemented, will contribute towards a robust arbitration framework.

    Conclusion

    The evolving jurisprudence surrounding section 34 underscores clear judicial intent to preserve the finality and autonomy of arbitral awards by restricting courts from modifying the same. The accepted position is largely clear, with numerous precedents establishing that courts do not have this power. The Gayatri Case, as mentioned in the beginning, is likely to follow this established norm.  While this approach bolsters the integrity and efficiency of arbitration, it also presents challenges that necessitate thoughtful reforms, particularly in addressing minor errors that do not justify setting aside an award. A more balanced and effective arbitration framework can be established by implementing legislative amendments, enhancing arbitration agreements, providing judicial guidance, and leveraging the tribunal’s powers under section 34(4). Such measures will ensure that arbitration remains a preferred method for dispute resolution, combining finality with fairness and efficiency, thus bringing about a balanced framework. 

  • Settlement Agreements and Section 12A Withdrawals: A Comparison with Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013

    Settlement Agreements and Section 12A Withdrawals: A Comparison with Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013

    BY ARSHIA ANN JOY AND ADITI SINGH, FOURTH-YEAR STUDENTS AT NUALS, KOCHI.

    Introduction

    A liquidation order is passed as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC“)  when the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP“) falls through, and the company cannot be revived within the stipulated timeline. However, courts, over time, have interpreted that issuing a liquidation order is not to be treated as a death sentence to the company and its operations. This is because the ultimate aim of the IBC is to facilitate the revival of the company if it is a feasible option. This further implies that the order permitting an entity’s liquidation can be reversed if the petition initiating CIRP proceedings is itself withdrawn. Section 12A was introduced in the IBC in 2018 to allow settlements between the Corporate Debtor (“CD“) and the creditors by allowing withdrawal of proceedings, with 1035 such withdrawals recorded till December 2023.

    This article explores the legality of allowing the withdrawal of proceedings after issuing the liquidation order, when a settlement agreement is reached. The authors also look at how the lack of procedural clarity surrounding the acceptance of the settlement agreement leads to difficulties in reviving the CIRP if the settlement agreement fails. Further, solutions are suggested through a comparison with section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA”), which facilitates arrangements aiming at debt restructuring and thereby resolving the financial crisis of the company. The authors argue that allowing the Adjudicating Authority (“AA”) to thoroughly analyse the settlement agreements while admitting section 12A applications, similar to the procedure envisaged in section 230 of CA, would be a step in the right direction in addressing the ambiguities surrounding the withdrawal of CIRP and revival of proceedings, if need be.

    Reversibility of a Liquidation Order and Withdrawal of Proceedings Post Issuance of Liquidation Order

    The parties are said to have arrived at a settlement agreement if the CD agrees to pay the creditor an agreed sum to resolve the conflict. Once a settlement agreement is reached after a liquidation order is passed, the parties can approach the AA under section 12A and withdraw the proceedings initiating CIRP. The primary intention behind introducing section 12A is to recognise post-admission settlement cases in line with statutory provisions. 

    The NCLAT, in Navaneetha Krishnan v. Central Bank of India, settled the law on reversibility of a liquidation order. It was held that even during the liquidation period, if any person satisfies the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) , and CoC accepts the said offer with a 90% voting share, such a person may apply for a withdrawal of the proceedings before the AA.

    In 2019, the NCLAT, in a similar case, emphasised the importance of allowing the promoters/shareholders to arrive at a settlement as per section 12A. In such cases, the application seeking initiation of CIRP can be withdrawn. The Supreme Court in Vallal RCK v. Siva Industries held that the wisdom of the CoC in approving a settlement plan must not be interfered with by the AA unless such a decision was wholly ‘capricious, arbitrary, irrational and de hors the provisions of the statute or the Rules.’ In this case, the CoC had failed to approve the proposed resolution plan with the requisite 66% majority. Subsequently, the Resolution Professional filed an application under section 33(1)(a) of IBC seeking liquidation of the entity pending which the promoter of the CD approached the AA with a settlement plan. The AA had, in turn, refused to approve it without giving due regard to the 90% majority decision of the CoC to go ahead with the settlement plan. 

    More recently, in 2022, the NCLT analysed the rationale put forth in Navaneetha Krishnan and Vallal RCK to conclude that even after the order of liquidation is passed, the application for withdrawal of proceedings may be allowed. In this case, the liquidator had received a settlement proposal from the promoter of the CD duly approved by the CoC with the requisite majority. 

    The NCLT Chennai Bench rightly noted:

    “Thus, it could be seen that even during the liquidation process, the parties have arrived at a settlement, then the application filed under Section 7, 9 and 10 can be withdrawn. Consequently, the CIRP and the liquidation initiated against the CD also stand withdrawn.”

    Thus, the order of liquidation already passed does not hinder the AA from passing an appropriate order of withdrawal as per section 12A if all the requisite conditions are satisfied.

    The Dilemma: Applying Section 12A Post Issuance of Liquidation Order

    Although the law seems to be settled regarding the impact of section 12A on a liquidation order, the lack of procedural clarity has led to contradictory results in the past few years. 

    In Jayashree Mohan v. Pathukasahasram Raghunathan, the NCLT laid down the limited scope available for reviving an entity undergoing liquidation. It was stated that once the liquidation process is initiated, the entity cannot come out of the process except through the two avenues, namely, by way of a scheme under section 230 of CA or by sale as a going concern. In this case, section 12A is not seen as a potential avenue which could result in the revival of the entity once liquidation is initiated.

    Similarly, the NCLT Chennai bench in Narayan Maheshwari disallowed the withdrawal application made under section 12A while the liquidation process was going on. It was emphasised that section 12A was inserted in Part II of the IBC, which deals exclusively with CIRP and not liquidation. Since no specific amendment is made in the liquidation process regulations, an application for withdrawal under section 12A cannot be allowed post-issuance of a liquidation order. It was further held that in Navaneetha Krishnan, the application under section 12A was never filed during liquidation and that the ex-promoter of the CD had filed an application under section 230 of CA for approving a scheme of compromise. In this case, the NCLT has voiced its concerns regarding allowing withdrawal of proceedings once the order of liquidation has been passed as it might potentially lead to every suspended Director/Promoters waiting till the liquidation order to enter into a settlement agreement at a ‘throw away price.’

    The above rationale of the tribunals could hamper the prospects of reviving a company through settlement, just because the order of liquidation has been initiated against it, thus defeating the purpose for which section 12A was included in the IBC. The application of section 12A to Part III of the IBC has to be specifically inculcated in the regulations to put a rest to these contradictory judgements.

    Revival of CIRP in case of Failure of Settlement Agreement

    In  the cases where withdrawal of proceedings was allowed after issuing the order of liquidation, the stakeholders had agreed on a one-time settlement (“OTS”) or a settlement agreement. In Sudip Dutta, the NCLT, while analysing a catena of decisions including Navaneetha Krishnan stated that:

    “In the instant case, no application was filed under Section 12A of IBC since there was no OTS that was acceptable to the Respondent No. 2 bank.”

    As noted above, the application for withdrawal under section 12A is considered after the issuance of the liquidation order only when the CoC approves a settlement agreement with the requisite majority. 

    However, the procedure for accepting or analysing such a settlement agreement is not specified in the statute or the relevant regulations. As seen above, the commercial wisdom of the CoC is given primacy and judicial intervention is permitted only if the decision of the CoC was wholly arbitrary or capricious. Analysing whether the decision itself was arbitrary or capricious would, in turn, require the settlement agreement to be on the record, which might not happen in most cases, especially when the statute/regulations fail to mandate the same, as was noted by the NCLAT in Krishna Garg. 

    In this case, the CD did not adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement after the CIRP proceedings were withdrawn. The NCLAT refused to revive the CIRP proceedings because the settlement agreement terms were not filed or brought on record before it. The NCLAT in SRLK Enterprises categorically stated that IBC is not a recovery proceeding where parties can repeatedly approach the AA owing to the non-repayment of debt. Proceedings can be revived only if the settlement agreement has been brought on record and has been made a part of the order of withdrawal. The AA can revive the CIRP proceedings, if the settlement agreement has a clause which provides for the revival of CIRP proceedings upon failure of setttlement agreement. The AA need not specifically grant the liberty to revive the proceedings in such cases. This would also imply that if there is no such clause allowing revival, the parties may be granted the liberty to do so specifically, by the AA. These recent orders suggest that the settlement agreement need not always become a part of the order allowing the withdrawal of proceedings, thus complicating the revival of proceedings under the IBC later when the parties fail to adhere to the settlement terms.

    Additionally, in Vallal RCK, the Supreme Court noted how the CoC has entered into many ‘deliberations’ before accepting the settlement plan, and stated that the CoC decision is not ordinarily subject to judicial scrutiny. The analysis done by the court gets confined to checking whether the CoC has done enough ‘deliberations’ before approving the settlement agreement. This seems to be in stark contrast to the procedure followed under section 230 of CA, where the AA is empowered to delve deeper into the actual contents of the proposed scheme.

    Comparison with Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013

    Even after passing the order of liquidation, if a scheme of Compromise demonstrates viability, feasibility, optimisation of the CD’s assets, and equitable consideration of creditors, the liquidator may submit an application under section 230 of the CA to the AA in a bid to revive the company. As per regulation 2B of the Liquidation Process Regulations 2016, a scheme of compromise and arrangement may be completed within 90 days post the order of liquidation. 

    Furthermore, clauses (2) to (10) of section 230 puts forth the powers of the AA in overseeing the admission of the scheme of compromise and arrangement. The AA is to be made aware of the latest financial position of the entity, the creditor’s responsibility statement, the auditor’s report on the fund requirements, the valuation report on the assets of the company, etc. Further, in SREI Equipment Finance Limited, the NCLAT observed that sections 230-232 cast an obligation on the AA to ensure that the scheme is not contrary to public policy and not prejudicial to the company’screditors and members. Greater checks and balances are put in place under section 230 of the CA while admitting a proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement even after a liquidation order is passed.

    Conclusion and Recommendations

    A similar procedural clarity on the AA’s oversight is absent when it comes to the role of the AA in a section 12A application involving a settlement agreement. Section 12A must specifically be made applicable to Part III of the IBC. Further, a time period may be mentioned in section 12A, similar to section 230 of CA, for accepting and analysing the settlement agreement once the AA has issued the order for liquidation. The regulations must also specify that the settlement agreement entered into must mandatorily be brought on record while withdrawing the proceedings so that revival of the CIRP can be made possible without much hassle if the said agreement falls through at a later stage.