Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 04-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Air Liquide North India Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) vs. Inox Air Products Pvt Ltd (Respondent).
  • Background: Dispute stems from a contract dated 14‑12‑2009 / 19‑12‑2009. The parties invoked an arbitration clause, leading to an arbitral award dated 02‑02‑2018 in favour of the petitioner for Rs 2,29,36,249 with interest at 18% per annum and costs of Rs 10 lakhs.
  • Arbitral Proceedings: The respondent produced 60 documents; the tribunal allowed their inclusion on payment of costs (order dated 05‑12‑2015, Annexure P‑22). On 25‑01‑2016 (Annexure P‑23) the tribunal decided oral evidence was unnecessary and fixed dates for arguments (25‑02‑2016, 29‑02‑2016, 03‑03‑2016) to be held at its office. The sole arbitrator died before final arguments, a new arbitrator was appointed, and the reconstituted tribunal issued the award on 02‑02‑2018.
  • Subsequent Litigation: The respondent filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the award. The petitioner filed an application under Section 34(4) requesting an adjournment so the tribunal could consider the 60 documents allegedly not examined.
  • High Court Proceedings: The High Court of Delhi (IA No. 1606/2019) delivered a final judgment and order on 24‑03‑2023, which was challenged by the petitioner through Special Leave Petition (C) No. 689/2024 before this Court.
  • Contentions: The petitioner argued that non‑consideration of the 60 documents vitiated the award and should be examined by the tribunal, which would limit grounds for interference under Section 34. The respondent, represented by senior counsel Shri Jayant Bhushan, supported the impugned order and sought dismissal of the petition.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The tribunal’s order of 05‑12‑2015 clearly permitted the respondent to place the 60 documents on record upon payment of costs, which was duly complied with; therefore the petitioner cannot now contest that permission.

2. The tribunal’s record of 25‑01‑2016 indicated oral evidence was unnecessary and the matter was fixed for final arguments, implying the tribunal intended to examine the documents.

3. The petitioner could not demonstrate a dispute over the existence of the documents, only over their contents; such a dispute is already before the Section 34 proceedings and should not be adjudicated by this Court to avoid prejudice.

4. Section 34(4) cannot be invoked to reopen the arbitral award or compel the tribunal to re‑examine evidence after the award has been rendered.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court’s order and the arbitral award dated 02‑02‑2018.
  • The award of Rs 2,29,36,249 with 18% per annum interest and Rs 10 lakhs costs remains effective.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.
  • Any pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Topics: Arbitration, Section 34, Award Enforcement