2019年9月13日，在Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Limited vs Samir Narain Bhojwani 一案中，孟买高等法院基于如下理由撤销涉案仲裁裁决：（1）仲裁员采纳证据时对双方当事人造成不公平对待从而违反自然正义原则；（2）仲裁员裁决支持特定义务履行的仲裁请求违反印度1963年《特定救济法》；（3）仲裁员超出其管辖权范围进行裁决。
一、背景介绍
Andheri Kamgar Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited（以下称Society）拥有某贫民窟所在地总面积为8892平方米的土地租赁权。1996年10月6日，Society与M/s. Aurora Properties & Investments（以下称M/s Aurora）签订《开发协议》，约定由M/s Aurora开发建造239套公寓房屋，且将其中40套提供给受开发项目影响的40户居民。1999年9月22日，经Society同意，M/s Aurora与本案的上诉人Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Limited（以下称Bombay Slum）签订《次级开发协议》，协议约定由Bombay Slum建造容纳240套房的公寓建筑，并将其中的40套免费提供给受开发项目影响的居民。
Bombay Slum 又与本案的被上诉人Samir Narain Bhojwani（以下称Samir）于2003年3月10日签订《开发协议》，之后双方多次签订补充协议。根据双方之间的协议，Samir负责建造由Wing“i”、Wing 发协议和Wing 发协议组成的公寓，其中Wing “ing计划建造22层，Bombay Slum除负责向当局获得房屋建造的相关批准和证书之外，还负责把107户受项目影响居民转移并安置在开发项目以外的地点。
本案中，Bombay Slum与Samir就Wing“C”的建造发生争议，2012年11月28日，Samir对Bombay Slum提起仲裁。Samir声称，根据双方协议，Wing“C”计划建至22层，然因Wing“C”未进一步获得6-22层的开工证书，Samir在完成5层的建造后不得不停工，而导致Wing“C”未进一步获得6-22层的开工证书的原因是Bombay Slum未按照双方约定及时转移107位受项目影响居民。 Samir请求Bombay Slum对其进行损害赔偿，同时请求特定义务的履行，即Bombay Slum 从当局获取Wing“C”6-22层的开工证书，以使Wing“C”6-22层得以继续建造。2018年9月7日，仲裁庭作出裁决支持了Samir的上述请求。
Bombay Slum 因不服上述仲裁裁决向孟买高等法院提起上诉，孟买高等法院对本案作出如下认定，最终撤销该仲裁裁决。
二、法院认定
1. 法院基于仲裁员违反自然正义原则撤销关于损害赔偿的裁决
上诉人称，仲裁员在裁决损害赔偿的请求时存在依据无关证据、依据未经证实的证据、片面依据部分证据的行为对上诉人造成不公平对待，构成明显违法。上诉人为主张提出了相关例证：（1）仲裁裁决书第49段依据《印度时报》针对上诉人其他开发项目的相关报道对上诉人作出不利判断，而该报道从未被双方当事人提及，与本案无关；（2）仲裁员对相关证据进行了区别对待，仲裁员拒绝考虑上诉人提交的显示被上诉人存在严重违约及欺诈行为重要证据，理由是这些证据在双方当事人抗辩结束后提交属于提交迟延，然而仲裁员引用《印度时报》的报道作为裁决依据同样发生在双方抗辩结束后，但仲裁员却未将该报道视为迟延证据而是将其作为裁决依据。被上诉人对此反驳称，虽然仲裁裁决书第49段引用了《印度时报》的相关报道，但是49段之前的论证显示已经有足够多的其他依据支持仲裁员的相关裁决。为支持这一辩称，被上诉人引用了最高院在 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board vs. Progressive Writters &Publishers, (2009) 5 SCC 678一案43到 45段的观点，被上诉人的这一辩称未获印度高等法院支持。（I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that before considering the said report published in Times of India in paragraph 49 of the arbitral award, the learned arbitrator had already rendered various findings against the petitioner, which were sufficient for the purpose of granting prayer for specific performance and damages in favour of the respondent. Reliance thus placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (supra) is misplaced and is even otherwise clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case.）；（3）仲裁员计算损害赔偿的主要参考是评估人Mr.Maniar的报告，尽管针对Mr. Maniar的交叉盘问显示该报告片面且不可信，仲裁员仍然坚持依据该报告结果计算损害赔偿；（4）在证人质证环节，仲裁员仅挑选上诉人证人对仲裁员的部分回答对上诉人作出不利判断，而未全面考虑所有回答；（5）仲裁员忽略了被上诉人针对编号为136、67、68、108、109、110、171和127的问题的回答；（6）仲裁员片面依据编号为253的问答、无视255号问答对上诉人作出不利判断；（7）仲裁员在裁定损害赔偿请求时无视上诉人对证据可采纳性提出的质疑从而采用了被上诉人提供的未经证实的证据。
孟买高等法院支持了上诉人的上述观点，认为仲裁员在裁决中考虑了无关事实，依据了未被证实的证据、片面依据部分证据，造成对当事人的不公平对待，违反了适用于仲裁程序自然正义原则。（In my view, the learned arbitrator could not have considered the evidence not produced by the parties and also more particularly after conclusion of the arguments without giving an opportunity to the parties to deal with such additional material in the impugned award, which the learned arbitrator himself had come across while granting prayer for specific performance and claim for damages. The impugned award clearly indicates that the learned arbitrator has committed violation of principles of natural justice by relying upon such material not forming part of the evidence produced by the parties. Such additional material cannot be considered even a part of evidence. By that as itmay, the learned arbitrator has not treated both the parties equally while considering the additional documents after conclusion of the arguments. The learned arbitrator has applied different yardstick to the evidence produced by both the parties.）
2. 孟买高等法院基于1963年《特定救济法》撤销关于请求特定义务履行的裁决
上诉人称，仲裁员在裁决中支持了关于特定义务履行的请求，这构成《仲裁法》第34(2)(b)(ii)中的明显违法，为支持这一主张，上诉人引用两个最高法案例在Ssangyong Engineering and Constructions Limited(supra)以及 Associated Builders (supra)案中的观点。上诉人进一步称，仲裁员为上诉人获取相关批准和证书设定了时间限制，违反印度《特定救济法》第10、12、14、20和21条的规定，因为这些批准证书何时能够获取取决于一些不特定因素，并不在上诉人的可控范围内（...it was not within the control of the petitioner to obtain several of such permissions within the time prescribed under the arbitral award... ），孟买高等法院支持了这一主张。(In my view, in view of Section 10, 12, 14, 20 and 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the directions issued by the learned arbitrator for carrying out various acts summarized aforesaid requires continuous supervision by the Court with minute details. In view of these circumstances, the prayer for specific performance being a discretionary relief ought not to have been granted by the learned arbitrator. The prayers for specific performance thus granted by the learned arbitrator are ex-facie contrary to the Section 10, 12, 14, 20 and 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963)。
此外，孟买高等法院认为，仲裁员裁定上诉人在规定之间内取得开工证明相当于间接对颁布证书的当局发布指令。（The learned arbitrator issued various such directions against the petitioner and indirectly against the authorities for granting various permission in implementation of the reliefs of specific performance granted by the learned arbitrator. ）孟买高等法院进一步认为，在裁定是否支持特定义务履行的请求时，被上诉人的行为也应被纳入到考虑范围内。（The conduct of the respondent also was relevant to be considered by the learned arbitrator while granting carb p527-19.doc prayer for specific performance.）有证据表明被上诉人拒绝履行部分义务，且在Wing “C”6至22层建筑施工前提出各种反条件。因此，基于上述被上诉人的行为，仲裁员不应裁定支持特定义务履行的仲裁请求。孟买高等法院引用了如下最高法案例支持这一观点：Supreme Court in casesN.P. Thirugnanam vs. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and Others (1995) 5 SCC 115案，Laxman Tatyaba Kankatevs. Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak(2010) 7 SCC 717案，Bal Krishna vs. Bhagwan Das (2008) 12 SCC 145案，Zarina Siddiqui vs. A.Ramalingam (2015) 1 SCC 705案，His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji vs. SitaRam Thaper (1996) 4 SCC 526案，Jaswinder Kaur (Now Deceased) Through her LegalRepresentatives & Ors. vs. Gurmeet Singh & Ors. (2017) 12 SCC 810案，以及Yohanan vs. Ramlatha & Ors. 2005 (7) SCC 534案。
值得注意的是，孟买高等法院还认为仲裁员关于特定义务履行的裁决超出其管辖权范围。法院认为，被上诉人的诉状显示，其请求履行特定义务是基于双方当事人2012年3月7日的《合作意向书》，而仲裁员支持被上诉人特定义务履行请求是基于2010年的《合作意向书》，仲裁员的这一裁定超出其管辖权范围。（ In my view, the learnedarbitrator has thus acted beyond the terms of the Agreement for Development and Supplementary Agreement entered into between the parties and has also travelled beyond the reliefs prayed by the respondent. ）
3. 孟买高等法院基于仲裁员超裁撤销仲裁员的其他裁决
本案仲裁员除了针对特定义务履行和损害赔偿之外，其他裁决内容包括：（1）在上诉人完全履行本裁决义务之前，被上诉人有权继续占有归属于上诉人的部分房屋；（2）在Wing“C”取得居住许可证以及上诉人履行本裁决执行部分第二段的义务之前，上诉人和相关第三人等不得以出售、转售等方式处理Wing“A”中的15套房和配套停车位；（3）上诉人与31为购房这之间的购房协议以及与银行机构签订的房屋抵押协议虚假且无效；（4）若上诉人在仲裁裁决之日起4个月内未支付被上诉人5.404亿卢比或者未移交Wing “B”中的3.63套房屋，被上诉人有权出售部分房屋。
上诉人称，以上裁决超出仲裁员管辖权范围，不应予以支持，在论证仲裁员对上诉人与第三方签订的协议此无管辖权时，上诉人引用了最高法院在State Bank ofIndia vs. Ericsson India Private Limited and Ors., (2018) 16 SCC 617 一案的判决支持其观点。孟买高等法院同意上诉人的主张，认为Bombay Slum是一个独立的法律实体，有权自由处理其房屋，购房者和银行等金融机构不是仲裁协议的当事人，因此仲裁员无权作出针对他们的命令。（In my view, even if those third parties would have been impleaded as the parties before the learned arbitrator, since they were not the parties to the arbitration agreement, no such order could be passed against such third parties by the learned arbitrator...Inmy view, the learned arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction by granting the reliefs against the third parties, who were not the parties to the arbitral proceedings and also to the arbitration agreement. This part of the award ex-facie demonstrates perversity and patent illegality.）孟买高等法院在其论证中援引了最高法在State Bank of India(supra) 一案的观点认为，仲裁庭在决定争议时无权影响作为有担保的债权人的第三人的权利和救济（...the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to affect the rights and remedies of the third parties as the secured creditors in course of determining disputes before it）。
针对上述第（2）项裁决，即若上诉人未对被上诉人履行仲裁裁决上的损害赔偿义务，上诉人不得出售该部分房屋。孟买高等法院认为，对上诉人房屋的此等控制不在被上诉人仲裁请求的范围内，因此超出仲裁员的管辖权范围。(In my view, charge of any property could be either created by operation of law or by agreement of parties. In the pleadings filed by the respondent before the learned arbitrator neither any such charge was pleaded nor proved by the respondent. The grant of such relief by the learned arbitrator was thus ex-facie beyond his jurisdiction. ) 同样，针对上述第（4）项裁决，即若上诉人自裁决书发出之日起四个月内未履行特定义务，被上诉人有权获得部分房屋。孟买高等法院认为，仲裁员这一行为同样超出其管辖权范围。
三、评论
本案仲裁裁决被撤销的最主要原因在于仲裁员自身未履行好相关职责，即仲裁员在采纳证据环节对当事人进行区别对待造成不公、仲裁员未严格依据仲裁请求进行裁决而是擅自对与仲裁请求不相关的事项进行裁决从而超越管辖权。由此可见，仲裁员在裁决中应时刻遵循公平公正的原则，同时裁决的范围不可超出仲裁请求的范围，防止出现导致仲裁协议被撤销的事由。