Alternative Dispute Resolution

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

(2021) 7 SCC 657

Facts

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Navigant Technologies had disputes arising from a consultancy arrangement.
A three-member tribunal heard the case.
The majority prepared, signed and issued an award.
The dissenting arbitrator delivered a separate dissenting opinion later.
The parties received the signed majority award before receiving the dissent.
The award debtor argued that:
the award was incomplete until the dissent was delivered;
limitation under Section 34 began only when both documents were received;
and its challenge was therefore within time.
The opposing party contended that:
the majority award was legally complete when signed and delivered;
the dissent was not part of the award;
and limitation had already begun.

Under Section 29, a multi-member tribunal decides by majority.
A valid majority award may be signed by the majority, provided the reason for any omitted signature is stated.
A dissenting opinion:
is not the arbitral award;
does not possess operative or enforceable force;
and is ordinarily supplied only for the parties’ information.
Section 34 limitation begins upon delivery of the signed majority award under Section 31(5).
Later delivery of a dissent does not restart or postpone limitation.

The majority had completed the adjudicatory act.
The award:
resolved the claims;
contained reasons;
was signed by the majority;
and was delivered to the parties.
Nothing in the Arbitration Act requires the majority to wait indefinitely for a dissenting arbitrator.
Otherwise, a minority member could delay:
finality;
enforcement;
and the commencement of limitation simply by postponing the dissent.
The dissenting opinion could be useful in a later challenge because it may:
identify weaknesses;
highlight ignored evidence;
or support an argument concerning reasoning.
But it does not become a second award.
Nor can it be enforced.
The party therefore had to calculate limitation from receipt of the majority award.
Its later reliance upon the dissent date made the Section 34 petition late.
The Court also distinguished the exceptional use of a dissent in Ssangyong.
There, the Supreme Court gave effect to the dissent under Article 142 and with party consent.
That does not make every dissent an award.
The normal statutory position remains that only the majority instrument constitutes the award.
The decision promotes certainty in multi-member arbitration and prevents tactical delay.

The Supreme Court held that the dissenting opinion was not part of the award.
Section 34 limitation began when the signed majority award was delivered.
The later dissent did not extend the filing period.
Use this case for: limitation and legal status of a dissenting arbitral opinion.