您目前的位置: 首页» 咨询资讯» 印度法院基于仲裁通知未适当送达撤销裁决(印度案例)

印度法院基于仲裁通知未适当送达撤销裁决(印度案例)

2021年4月15日,在 M/S Winners English High School vs M/S Edusmart Services Pvt. Ltd 一案中,印度德里地区法院裁定,鉴于被申请人未向申请人发送仲裁通知,申请人在仲裁程序中未得到平等对待,没有充分的机会陈述案情,仲裁庭的组成不符合《三方协议》的仲裁条款的约定,因此,根据《仲裁与调解法》第34(2)(a)(iii)和(v)条,涉案裁决应予以撤销。

一、案情介绍

2012年6月2日,当事人签订了《三方协议》,根据该协议,被申请人为申请人提供安装智能程序的服务,包括硬件(即服务器、设备、网络和配件)存储库内件的销售和供应并提供配套服务和耗材。被申请人将在5年合同期间内安装、监测和维护智能程序,并确保硬件中存在的任何缺陷得到纠正,使智能程序在整个合同期间能够顺利运行。被申请人还承诺在合同期内提供有关设施的服务、运作及管理。合同价款在整个合同期间分20个季度分期支付。

《三方协议》第9.1条的仲裁条款约定:“各方之间因本协议或其任何部分而产生或与之有关的任何争议或分歧,应根据1996年《印度仲裁和调解法》或该法案的任何制定本或修订本的规定,提交一名可接受的独任仲裁员解决。独任仲裁员应由甲方指定。仲裁地点为新德里,语言为英语。新德里的法院有权受理各方之间的所有争议。”

据称,尽管申请人多次提出要求和提醒,但被申请人未能纠正所安装设施存在的问题,最终导致申请人在支付628378卢比后停止分期付款。该争议随后被提交仲裁。

2016年11月4日,独任仲裁员作出对被申请人有利的裁决。仲裁员裁定申请人向被申请人支付于2014年6月8日到期的8,81,622.02卢比以及相关利息和费用等。

申请人根据1996年《仲裁与调解法》第34条请求撤销裁决。法院经分析支持了撤销裁决的申请。

二、法院认定

申请人基于如下理由请求撤销裁决:(1)仲裁庭的组成不符合当事各方的协议;(2)裁决缺乏有说服力的证据,违反了第31(3)条;(3)裁决违反了自然正义原则,违背了印度法的基本政策,与基本的道德和正义观念相冲突。申请人未收到指定仲裁员或仲裁程序的通知,甚至未收到裁决副本。申请人在每一阶段都无法陈述主张。(4)裁决显然是专断的,反复无常的,在本质上是非法的,并基于完全无关的考虑而作出,存在明显的违法性并损害了司法公正;(5)裁决所判给的利息过高,极为不公平。

被申请人认为申请人对裁决的异议完全是对法律程序的滥用,应予以驳回。被申请人称申请人所提出的撤销裁决的理由没有根据,也没有证据支持。另外,这些理由不属于法案第34条的范围。

1996年《仲裁与调解法》第34条规定了裁决的撤销:

“34.撤销仲裁裁决的申请-(1)向法院寻求撤销仲裁裁决只能根据第(2)款和第(3)款提出申请。

(2)只有在以下情况下,法院才能撤销仲裁裁决:

(a)提出申请的一方提供以下证明:(i)一方有不具备行为能力的情形,或(ii)根据当事人约定适用的法律,或没有约定的根据当时有效的法律,仲裁协议无效;或(iii)提出申请的一方未得到关于指定仲裁员或仲裁程序的适当通知,或者无法陈述其主张;或(iv)仲裁裁决处理的争议不在仲裁预计的范围内或不在提交仲裁的范围之内,或者包含对超出提交仲裁范围的事项的决定;但是,如果提交仲裁事项的决定可以与未提交仲裁事项的决定分开,则仅可将包含未提交仲裁事项的决定的一部分仲裁裁决予以撤销;或(v)仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序与当事各方的协议不符,除非该协议与当事人不能违反的本部分规定相冲突,或没有协议的,不符合本部的规定;或

(b)法院裁定-(i)争议标的无法根据当时有效的法律通过仲裁解决,或(ii)仲裁裁决与印度的公共政策相抵触。

说明1-为避免任何疑问,特此声明,仅在以下情况下,裁决与印度的公共政策相抵触:(i)裁决是由欺诈或腐败而起或受欺诈或腐败影响,或违反第75条或第81条;(ii)裁决违反印度法律的基本政策;或者(iii)裁决与最基本的道德或正义观念相抵触。

说明2-为避免疑问,检验是否与印度法律的基本政策相抵触,并不需要对争议的实体问题进行审查。

(2A)由国际商业仲裁以外的其他仲裁所产生的仲裁裁决,如果法院认为该裁决表面上显示的明显违法性致使该裁决无效,也可以予以撤销:但不得仅基于法律适用错误或重新评估证据而撤销裁决。

(34. Application for setting aside arbitral award- (1) Recourse to acourt against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub- section (3).

(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the court only if-

(a)the party making the application furnishes proof that-(i) a party was under some incapacity, or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an     arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or

(b)the court finds that-(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or (ii)the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.

Explanation 1 - For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,-- (i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or (ii) it is in contravention with the fundamentalpolicy of Indian law; or (iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions ofmorality or justice.

Explanation 2.-- For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.

(2A)An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award: Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence.)

最高法院在 Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority , (2015) 3 SCC 49案中认定只有当仲裁员的裁决是专断的,反复无常的,有悖常理的,或者当法院的良知受到震撼,或者当非法性并非轻微而是触及到问题的根源时,才允许干涉仲裁裁决。最高法院还认为,一旦发现仲裁员的方法并非专断和反复无常,就不需要对事实进行干预。在作出仲裁裁决时,仲裁员是证据数量和质量的最终把控人。明显违法性必须涉及问题的根源,不能是轻微的违法性。(Supreme Court in case of  Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority , (2015) 3 SCC 49 has held that the interference with an arbitral award is permissible only when the findings of the arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse or when conscience of the Court is shocked or when illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. It is held that once it is found that the arbitrator's approach is neither arbitrary nor capricious, no interference is called for on facts. The arbitrator is ultimately a master of the quantity and quality of evidence while drawing the arbitral award. Patent illegality must go to the root of the matter and cannot be of trivial nature.)

最高法院在 Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National Highways Authority of India , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 677案中认为,根据《仲裁与调解法》第34(2A)条,一个有悖常理的决定,虽然不再是“印度公共政策”下的异议理由,但肯定构成裁决表面的明显违法性。仲裁员根据其背着当事人采用的文件作出的裁决可被认为是没有证据的决定,因为这种决定不是基于当事人提出的证据,因此也必须被认为有悖常理。最高法院还认为,完全没有证据的认定或在作出决定时忽视重要证据而作出的裁决有悖常理,应以明显违法性予以撤销。(Supreme Court in case of  Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National Highways Authority of India , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 677 has held that under Section 34 (2A) of The Act, a decision which is perverse while no longer being a ground for challenge under "public policy of India", would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. A finding based on the documents taken behind the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led by the parties and therefore would also have to be characterized as perverse. It is held that a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.)

《仲裁与调解法》第11条规定了仲裁员的指定,第12条规定拟任仲裁员应以书面形式披露任何可能对其独立性或公正性产生正当怀疑的情况。仲裁程序记录显示,第二被申请人向涉案仲裁员发送信函提议其担任独任仲裁员,之后该仲裁员接受了指定。但是,仲裁程序记录并未显示关于指定仲裁员提议的材料以及关于仲裁员履行适当披露义务的材料已被发送给申请人。《仲裁与调解法》第21条规定,仲裁程序自一方的仲裁请求被另一方收到之日起开始,但在本案中,仲裁程序记录中缺乏关于根据第21条向申请人发送必要通知的材料。

被申请人的索赔陈述书中提及一份日期为2015年5月31日的法律通知副本,并称已随附其中,但是,仲裁程序记录并没有这样一份通知。仲裁程序记录中有一份日期为2014年6月8日的由被申请人的律师发送给申请人的催款通知副本,其中载明,如果申请人未能在收到通知之日起15天内支付未偿款项,被申请人将假定双方之间出现了争议,并援引协议的仲裁条款或启动其他在法律上被认为适当的附带程序。法院指出,即使在这份日期为2014年6月8日的通知中,也未包含《仲裁与调解法》第21条所要求发送的仲裁通知。《三方协议》的仲裁条款约定根据《仲裁与调解法》将争议提交“一名可接受的独任仲裁员”解决。但记录显示,在指定涉案独任仲裁员之前,两名被告未以任何方式向申请人寻求确认。因此,独任仲裁员的指定不符合仲裁条款的约定。

另外,仲裁诉讼记录中没有任何记录表明仲裁员作出的命令以及之后作出的经签署的裁决副本已送达申请人。根据《仲裁与调解法》第34(3)条,申请撤销裁决的一方应在收到仲裁裁决之日起3个月内提出申请。最高法院在 State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs ARK Builders Private Limited (supra) 案和 Benarsi Krishna Committee & Ors vs Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (supra) 案中认定,撤销仲裁裁决的时效期间自经仲裁员正式签署的仲裁裁决副本送交异议方或异议方收到之日起计算。申请人于2018年8月最后一周收到执行法院的通知时才获悉涉案裁决。申请人于2018年11月12日提出撤销裁决的申请,在第34(3)条规定的三个月期限内。

总之,被申请人没有按照《仲裁与调解法》第21条的规定向申请人发出要求将争议提交仲裁的通知,以推断仲裁程序已开始,继而让仲裁员以书面方式向申请人披露可能对其独立性或公正性产生正当怀疑的任何情况。《仲裁与调解法》第18条规定各方应受到平等对待,并被给予充分的机会陈述主张。但是,根据仲裁程序的记录,申请人在仲裁程序中未得到平等对待,没有充分的机会陈述主张。仲裁庭的组成不符合《三方协议》的仲裁条款的约定。因此,根据《仲裁与调解法》第34(2)(a)(iii)和(v)条,涉案裁决应予以撤销。

三、评论

本案案情较为简单,即由仲裁通知未送达引发了其他一系列程序不公正行为,包括:申请人被剥夺对拟任仲裁员提出异议的权利;申请人缺席仲裁程序,没有充分的机会陈述案情;申请人甚至未收到经仲裁员签署的裁决副本,而是通过执行法院获悉涉案裁决。鉴于仲裁程序存在如此严重的缺陷,裁决应予以撤销。