Question

The judgment in ............................. skews the delicate balance, carefully crafted by the Model Law (and enshrined in s 34), between finality of arbitral awards on one hand and permissible judicial review on the other.

• A. Renu Sagar Power Co vs. General Electric Corporation
• B. ONGC vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.
• C. Sundaram Finance vs. NEPC
• D. Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd vs. Meena Vijay Khetan

Hint:

The evolution of the term "public policy" is central to understanding arbitration law in India. Remember the key cases in sequence: \textit{Renu Sagar} (narrow interpretation), \textit{Saw Pipes} (wide interpretation including "patent illegality"), and the subsequent 2015 Amendment (which restricted the \textit{Saw Pipes} interpretation).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question refers to a landmark judgment in arbitration law that significantly expanded the scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The core principle of modern arbitration law is minimal judicial intervention to ensure the finality of awards. The question implies that a particular judgment disturbed this balance by broadening the grounds for challenge.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The case being referred to is Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705. In this case, the Supreme Court interpreted the term "public policy of India" under Section 34. The court gave it a very wide meaning, holding that an award could be set aside if it was "patently illegal." This "patent illegality" ground was not explicitly mentioned in the Act but was read into the concept of public policy. This decision was widely criticized for opening the floodgates for challenging arbitral awards on their merits, thereby undermining the finality of the arbitration process and going against the spirit of the UNCITRAL Model Law. The law was later amended in 2015 to narrow down the scope of "public policy" and clarify the "patent illegality" ground, largely to undo the effects of the \textit{Saw Pipes} judgment.
- \textit{Renu Sagar} had earlier defined "public policy" in a much narrower sense.
- \textit{Sundaram Finance} and \textit{Olympus Superstructures} deal with other aspects of arbitration.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The judgment is ONGC vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.