2019年10月15日，在Acme Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs Union Of India O.M.P.(COMM) 459/2016一案中，印度新德里高等法院驳回了申请人的撤裁申请，并在完整审查仲裁员的裁判过程之后进一步强调法院无权力也无能力干涉仲裁员的事实认定权，尤其是在有各种事实认定选择的时，仲裁员有权就其中某一种可能性进行认定。此外，法院也考虑到当事方之间合同原则来进行审查，认定合同属于综合协议而不是单纯的设备建造和交付协议，进而支持仲裁员对于申请人违约的认定，加强判决说服力。
一、背景介绍
涉案申请基于1996年《仲裁和和解法》第34条，旨在撤销独任仲裁员的裁决。
申请的基础事实是，申请人与被申请人之间签订了供应、架设和调试HMP 30-45 TPH的合同，其中一项是在Beacon项目下的Avantipur，另一项是在Pushpak项目下的Silchar。根据合同条款，一台设备将直接在Silchar安装和调试，而另一台设备将在Avantipur进行安装和调试，但将在Pathankot的仓库交付。根据《中标书》中规定的条款，交付分别为Pathankot和Silchar，包括道路运输费。本案中的争议主要与热拌设备的安装和完成有关。具体情况方面，两个项目分别验收之后由申请人在Pathankot和Silchar交付给被申请人。根据合同，被申请人应根据验收报告将基本价金的80％和100％的关税支付给申请人。但后来被申请人取消了合同，理由是申请人未在Avantipur完成设备，而在Silchar完成的设备质量不达标且具有许多重大缺陷。
双方之间发生争议之后，被申请人向新德里高等法院请求任命独任仲裁员，以对金钱债务发起主张。新德里高等法院任命了一名独任仲裁员来裁决争议。仲裁员判被申请人的部分反申请胜利。申请人申请撤裁，其中依据包括超裁和违反公共政策。
首先，申请人接受了《中标书》的所有条款和条件。但是从开始之日起，申请人就要求延长交付期限。这些设备在1994年以分开的状态在各个地点交货。Silchar的设备已建成，但从未达到要求的输出率，Avantipur的设备未建成也未试运行。
申请人主张被申请人应根据验收报告将基本价金的80％和100％的关税支付给其自身。为此仲裁员深入研究了合同的条款以及热拌设备建造中的技术障碍。
1、Silchar设备
首先，设备不能在手动模式下工作。仲裁员很大程度上依据最后的“联合报告”（Ex.C-42）（其中包含双方高级官员在场见证而作出的的联合载荷测试结果）来作出裁决。该报告在第13项中记录了该设备的整体性能并不令人满意。在这三天中的绩效结果仅是名义上的或直接没有。（At item No. 13, this report records that over all performance of the plant is not satisfactory. Out put achieved on all three days was only nominal or nil.）而且无论何时试验其功能，设备的重要部分都会发生大量故障，并且大部分时候在特定日期或随后的几天对其进行维修。预期的温度从未达到过。（This out put loses significance (what ever it is worth) as there was so much break down of vital parts whenever its functioning was attempted and most of the time was taken in repairing it on particular days or ensuing days. The expected temperature was never achieved.）最终结果记录在第23段中，表明该设备不适合其现有形式，并且需要做一些列出的修改/添加/维修后才能使其运行正常。（Final result is recorded in Para 23 that the Plant is not fit in its existing form and it needs a number of listed modification, /additions/repairs for satisfactory running.）
仲裁员指出，申请人承诺进行修改，但没有这样做。仲裁员驳回了被申请人主张的合同无法履行是由于下雨/恶劣天气条件这种说法，理由是被申请人没有披露过季节/气候变化。因此合同并非自始无效。实际上，试运行在不同年份的不同月份都失败了，因此甚至可以说这与不利的天气条件或季节变化都没有关系。（Arbitrator observed that petitioner undertook to carry out modifications, but did not do so. Arbitrator rejected the contention that contract was impossible to perform or that targets could not be achieved due to rains/adverse weather conditions. There was no plea that contract was void ab initio since DGBR had not disclosed the season/climate changes. In fact, trial run shad failed in different months in different years and thus could not be even related to adverse weather conditions or seasonal changes. ）
其次，设备也不能在自动模式下工作，而且申诉人也承认了缺陷（the defects were admitted by the petitioners），并且该缺陷被反复指出（Were noticed and pointed out repeatedly by the claimant DGBR to Respondent, and to the various officers of the Respondents）。
关于该设备已由被申请人验收并已签发合格证明因此在设备的安装/调试和运行中出现任何问题均不表示违反《中标书》这一论点，仲裁员认为该点故意忽略了这样一个事实，即合同目的不仅是建造这两个设备，而且还要求建成的设备能达到合同温度下达到热混合骨料的产量。（These arguments of Learned Counsel for respondent conveniently omit the facts that the Contract was not only for supply of the two Plants but also essential requirement was of their erection and commissioning to achieve the contracted output of Hot Mixed aggregate at contracted temperature by respondent themselves at named location/site.）仲裁员观察到，由于沥青传输系统的阻塞，该设备很少能运转一到两个小时，也未能达到所需的产出。仲裁员观察到该设备具有两项重要功能；（i）混合沥青并保持其流动性；（ii）在控制的速度和温度下，自动进行骨料的配料和将装载的骨料与热沥青混合。仲裁员已经注意到，Silchar设备是一次失败。尽管被申请人已经付款合同价值的80％作为预付款，但由于其无法用该设备在该国敏感地区修建公路，因此也遭受了损失。（The Arbitrator has observed that the Plant rarely functioned for one to two hours and that too did not give the required output, due to the choking of the Bitumen Transfer System, on several occasions. The Arbitrator has observed that the Plant had two vital functions; (i) to mix the Bitumen and ensure that it is flowing; and (ii) that there is auto batching of the aggregate and mixing of the loaded aggregate with hot Bitumen, at controlled speed and temperature. He has noticed that the Silchar Plant was only a „machine‟ which failed again and again and DGBR (user department) had to suffer due to non-use of the Plant for construction of the Road at sensitive areas of the country, despite having paid 80% of the contract value, asadvance.）
仲裁员的认定是，合同是供应、架设和调试的“综合协议”，仅仅提供设备并不能解除申请人的合同义务。（Learned Arbitrator has rendered a finding that the contract was a "Composite agreement" for supply, erection and commissioning and mere supplying the Plants could not absolve the petitioners of their contractual obligations.）申请人违约。
2、Avantipur设备
仲裁员注意到了地点变更的问题，约定地点的确是在Avantipur，但是交付地点据称是Pathankot。但据仲裁员认为，当事方之间的几封通信都提到Avantipur为建设地点。仲裁员还注意到Avantipur设备的一些缺陷，并在裁决书的第102页中给出了上述缺陷的详细列表（《缺陷表》）。仲裁员在详细说明了申请人的违约行为之后，得出的结论是申请人是违约方，而不是被申请人。（In fact, the Arbitrator has also taken note of several defects in the Plant to be installed at Avantipur and has given a detailed list of the said defects at page 102 of the Award. Having detailed the breaches on the part of the petitioner, the Arbitrator has come to a finding that it wasthe petitioner, who was guilty of committing breach and not the respondent.）仲裁员注意到，《缺陷表》由申请人的官员在所有页面上签署，并且在交叉盘问中被认证为是Ex.S-2的真实文件（Arbitrator observed that table of defects was signed by officer of the petitioner on all pages and on cross examination Ex.S-2 was proved to be a genuine document.）。
二、法院认定
仲裁员根据其之前的几封通信和所提供的证据认定的事实是，申请人没有成功地建设和调试设备，并且违约。本案涉案合同是热拌设备供应、架设和调试的综合合同，只有在设备被调试和运转到规定的产能时，申请人的义务方得到履行。仲裁员的结论是被申请人将80％的价金预付给了申请人，但被申请人无法利用设备，并且在道路建设过程遭受了损失，因此申请人违约。法官认为该判断是正确的。（The Arbitrator has, based on several communications before it and the evidence led, has come to a finding of fact that the petitioner had failed to erect and commission the Plants and was in breach of the obligations and in my view, rightly so. This was a composite contract for supply, erection and commissioning of the Hot Mix Plants and only when the plants were commissioned and worked to the required capacity, the obligation of the petitioner could be said to be discharged. The learned Arbitrator with great pains has come to a conclusion that having advanced 80% of the money to the petitioner, the DGBR could not utilise the Plants and the process of road construction suffered.）
基于1996年《仲裁和和解法》第34条的仲裁裁决司法审查的范围极为狭窄。仲裁员是事实和证据的主人。在本案中，仲裁员深入了解过技术细节之后认定申请人提供的设备无法投入运行，而法院不能用其观点去代替仲裁员的技术方面的认定，理由是法院无权干涉，法院也不具有专业能力去干涉。在仲裁员采取某种可行的观点时尤其如此。（While examining the objections against the Award under Section 34 of the Act, the scope of judicial review is extremely narrow. The Arbitrator is a master of facts and evidence. In the present case, the Arbitrator has gone into depths of the technicalities and come to a finding that the Plants supplied by the petitioner could not be put into operation. This Court cannot substitute its views for the technical findings given by the Arbitrator as neither it is in the domain of this Court to so interfere nor does the Court possess the expertise to do so, more so when a possible view has been taken by the Arbitrator.）
当事双方之间订立合同时，其意图显然是购买热拌设备，该设备在安装和调试后需要可以运行，以在边境地区铺设道路。仅仅提供设备不能使申请人解除责任。申请人在Avantipur建设设备失败，而Silchar的设备，尽管已启用，但无法按要求运行，这延迟了项目并给被申请人造成了无法弥补的损失。SQAE的最初验收证明仅是用于发放预付款。最终验收需要被申请人进行，但是这个阶段未完成。（The contention of the petitioner that having supplied the machine and having received 80% payment, the goods had passed to the petitioner only deserves to be rejected. When the contract was entered into between the parties, the intent was clearly to purchase Hot Mix Plants, which upon erection and commissioning could be operated for the purpose of laying roads in border areas. Mere supply of the machine cannot absolve the petitioner. On ultimate analysis, I find that petitioner failed miserably in even erecting the Plant at Avantipur. As regards the Plant at Silchar, though it was commissioned, but it was incapable of functioning as per the requirement. It broke down whenever attempt was made to commission it. Even during the intermittent running the required temperature was never achieved. The initial certificate by SQAE was only to release advance payment. Final testing was to be by the User i.e. DGBR. But this stage was never achieved. Thus initial inspection can be of no avail to the petitioner. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the project involved was laying down roads in the difficult terrains on the borders. These are very crucial and critical projects. Failure on the part of the petitioner to supply the plants, as per specifications, had delayed the project and caused an irreparable damage to the respondent.）
基于以上理由，法院驳回申请人的主张。
三、评 论
印度法院的做法秉持了仲裁司法审查中的通行的做法。对于复杂事实的认定而言，法院仅有权审查仲裁程序是否正常，而对于仲裁员如何认定复杂事实，只要其过程正当合理，法院不仅无权干涉，而且也可能无专业能力对此进行干涉。因此，在面临几种可能的认定的情况下，法院并无权也无法代替仲裁员作出认定。不过，在本案中法院仍然审查了案情，认定申请人违约，从这个角度加强了判决的安全性和说服力。