2019年12月19日，在M/S. Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd, vs M/S Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd,一案中，印度孟买高等法院（以下简称法院）认为，仲裁员的认定不存在任何明显违法或违反印度公共政策之处。原告认为可能存在与仲裁员相反的观点，这实际上是在企图重新评估证据。因此，法院驳回了原告根据《仲裁法》第34（2A）条和第34（2）（b）（ii）条提出的撤销仲裁裁决的申请。
一、案情介绍
本案被告Maharashtra StateRoad Development Corporation Ltd（以下简称MSRDC）就某段公路的修缮进行招标。MSRDC于2001年2月2日接受了本案原告Madhav Structural EngineeringLtd的投标，随后于2001年3月2日发送了工程订单。
2002年10月18日，MSRDC以原告违约，未完成工程进度为由终止协议。为解决争议，原告请求法院指定仲裁员并获得批准。
2016年12月17日，独任仲裁员作出裁决，驳回了原告的请求。仲裁员认为MSRDC已履行其义务，包括在合同规定的6个月内移交项目场地，原告应对工程进度的延误负全部责任。
随后，原告请求孟买高等法院撤销仲裁裁决。原告撤销裁决的理由可以大致分为以下三个方面：（1）仲裁员缺乏公正性；（2）程序方面存在缺陷，包括召开仲裁会和保存会议记录的方式；（3）裁决中未审议关键的材料和证据。（The grounds of challenge can broadly be lassified in three: (1) allegations against the arbitrator of lacking impartiality; (2) 19th December 2019 Madhav Structural Engg Ltd v MSRDC arbp333-2017-F2.doc alleged procedural lacunae including the manner of conducting arbitration meetings and maintaining minutes; and (3) that the award does not consider crucial material and evidence.）
二、法院认定
1. 针对仲裁员和程序的指控
法院认为，原告在申诉书和书面意见中对仲裁员及程序的指控不仅笼统、模糊，而且缺乏事实依据。原告声称仲裁员擅自进行调解程序，缺乏独立性和公正性。法院认为这很难成为质疑仲裁员独立性和公正性的理由。仲裁员是否自行进行调解无关紧要，因为当事人确实曾试图进行调解。调解提议首先由原告向MSRDC提出，且没有人对该提议表示反对，事实上法院认为MSRDC确实已经同意了调解提议。（The Petitioner claims the sole arbitrator did this on his own, but that hardly matters, for there is no doubt that some conciliation was indeed attempted. That is hardly a reason to question the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality. In any event, no one seems to have objected to the proposal; and MSRDC indeed agreed to it）
原告认为，仲裁员驳回其提出的推迟庭审的请求，表明仲裁员缺乏独立性和公正性。法院查明，在仲裁程序开始4年后，之前请求法院指定仲裁员的原告又根据《仲裁法》第14条以仲裁员未履行或未能履行职责为由请求终止该仲裁员的委任，但被法院驳回。之后，原告提出推迟庭审的请求，被仲裁员驳回。法院认为，考虑到仲裁程序进行了很长的时间，仲裁员驳回推迟庭审的申请是正确的，该行为不能证明仲裁员缺乏独立性和公正性。另外，原告提出第14条申请的理由与在本案中指控仲裁员缺乏公正性的理由没有本质区别，第14条申请已经被法院驳回，原告不得一再提出相同的论点。（Not only is it impossible to examine these but the Petitioner as we have seen sought a termination of the arbitral mandate on precisely these grounds. He failed. That order is conclusive and cannot be reopened. It is not permissible for the Petitioner to constantly re-agitate these arguments.）
因此，法院认为，原告对仲裁员及程序的指控缺乏依据。
2. 第34条异议
原告根据《仲裁法》第34（2A）条（裁决明显违法）和第34（2）（b）（ii）条（裁决违反印度公共政策）请求撤销裁决。
《仲裁法》第34（2A）条规定：“对于由国际商事仲裁以外的仲裁作出的裁决，如果法院认为该裁决因表面的明显违法而无效，法院可以撤销该裁决，但是法院不得仅因法律适用的错误适用或者通过重新评估证据撤销裁决。”（[34][(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 re-appreciation of evidence.]
《仲裁法》第34（2）（b）（ii）条规定：“（2）仲裁裁决只有在下列情况下才能被法院撤销：……（b）法院认定：……（ii）仲裁裁决与印度的公共政策相冲突。”
针对这两项撤销裁决的理由，法院援引了最高法院在Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority案中关于第34（2）（b）（ii）条所指的“印度公共政策”和第34（2A）条所指的“明显违法”的观点。
关于“明显违法”，最高法院在该案中认为“明显违法”可能有3个类别：（1）违反印度实体法；（2）违反《仲裁法》；（3）违反《仲裁法》第28（3）条。（“patent illegality” has three possible components: i） a contravention ofthe substantive law of India; ii） a contravention of the Arbitration Act and iii） a violation of Section 28(3) of the Arbitration Act.）在本案中，由于原告不能证明本案属于这三个类别中的任意一个，故原告关于裁决明显违法的论点被法院驳回。
关于“公共政策”，其检验标准似乎是，裁决必须体现一种明智的做法，没有明显的反常。裁决不得违背正义或道德。（As to the question of public policy the test appears to be that the award must display a judicious approach, one not palpably perverse. It must not be against justice or morality.）尽管原告可能坚持认为存在严重不公，但这个检验并非是哪些情况使当事人震惊，而是由法院认定哪些情况不合理。要求裁决没有明显的反常，采用明智的做法，这两个要求都可以表现为公平、合理、非任意性，最重要的是看似合理。这个检验不是关于错误或感知错误的检验，纯粹的错误不是反常。（while the Petitioner may insist that there has been great injustice, the test is not that what shocks a litigant but rather what the Court finds unconscionable. The requirements that there be no demonstrable perversity, and that the approach must be judicious may both be taken to be facets of fairness, reasonableness, non-arbitrariness and, above all, plausibility. The test is not one of wrongness, or perceived wrongness. Mere wrongness is not perversity.）撤销裁决最根本的检验标准是，仲裁裁决必须如此不合理，以至于任何理性的人都不可能作出这样的裁决。（The fundamental test is that for a challenge to succeed the arbitral decision must be so unreasonable that no rational person could have ever arrived at it.）
另一方面，一个有道理的或潜在的观点、解释或证据评估不允许司法干预。法院对仲裁裁决的干预要限制在最低限度。法院在审理第34条申请时有以下限制：（a）法院在对仲裁裁决适用“公共政策”理由时不作为上诉法院，因而不能纠正事实错误。（2）仲裁员是评估证据的数量和质量的唯一裁判，仲裁员基于事实可能得出的观点必能通过审查。（3）证据不充分不能成为法院干预的理由。根据《仲裁法》第34（2）条，法院不得对事实进行重新审查，以查明是否可以作出不同的决定。（4）只有当裁决对法院的良知造成冲击时，才可以撤销该裁决。（5）违法必须触及根源，法院不能对微不足道的违法进行干预。仲裁员对合同条款的合理解释不受法院干涉。解释错误属于仲裁员的管辖范围。因此，没有理由进行干涉。（6）如果对合同条款有两种可能的解释，则必须接受仲裁员的解释，法院根据第34条不能以其意见取代仲裁员的意见。
This Court also reiterated the restrictions on the powers of a Section 34 Court including the following:
(a) The court under Section 34(2) of the Act, does not act as acourt of appeal while applying the ground of “public policy” to an arbitral award and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected.
(b) A possible view by the arbitrator on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the arbitrator is the sole judge of the quantity and quality ofthe evidence.
I Insufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground for interference by the court. Re-examination of the facts to find out whether a different decision can be arrived at is impermissible under Section 34(2) of the Act.
(d) An award can be set aside only if it shocks the conscience of the court.
(e) I llegality must go to the root of the matter and cannot be of a trivial nature for interference by a court. A reasonable construction of the terms of the contract by the arbitrator cannot be interfered with by the court. Error of construction is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Hence, no interference is warranted.
(f) If there are two possible interpretations of the terms of the contract, the arbitrator’s interpretation has to be accepted and the courtunder Section 34 cannot substitute its opinion over the arbitrator’s view.”）
根据以上标准，法院审查仲裁裁决后认为，仲裁员的认定不存在任何明显违法或违反印度公共政策之处。原告似乎在争论可能存在某种相反的支持原告一方的观点，并认为仲裁员本应采纳这种相反的观点（It is not demonstrated that any finding of the learned arbitrator suffers from a patent illegality or violates the public policy of the country as defined by Associate Builders. What the Petitioner seems to argue is that a contrary view is possible and the sole arbitrator ought to have taken the contrary view, i.e. one supporting the Petitioner.）。
原告声称仲裁员在作出决定时忽视了“关键”证据。法院认为，申请人并未指明是哪些关键证据。申请人只是重复地表示未完成工作进度应考虑天气状况，场地未完全移交以及没有足够的工程图。但是，这些都不能证明仲裁员忽视证据。相反，这正证明仲裁员已经评估证据，只是并非以原告所喜欢的方式。（What the Petitioner alleges is that the sole arbitrator ignored something ‘vital’ in evidence in arriving at his decision. But the Petitioner is unable to pinpoint what exactly this might be. He repeats the ground that allowance should have been made for the monsoon, for the site not being fully handed over to him, and that there were insufficient drawings to work with. But none of this constitutes a failure to appreciate evidence. To the contrary: it is very much an appreciation of evidence, just not an appreciation to the Petitioner’s liking.）
法院认为，从裁决无法看出仲裁员在任何法律依据方面存在错误，也不存在错误评估证据的问题。认为某个特定文档应该以何种方式解读毫无意义，这不过是企图重新评估证据。法院认为仲裁裁决完全正确，仲裁员的观点不仅看似合理，而且是唯一可能的观点。如果这是一个普通的民事诉讼，任何法院都会采纳这种观点。（It is impossible from this Award to say that the arbitrator was in error on any of the grounds available in law. There is no question of wrongly appreciating the evidence. There is little point in saying that a particular document should have been read in this or that fashion. That is nothing but an attempt to have the evidence re- appreciated. I believe the Award is completely correct and the view taken by the arbitrator is not only a plausible view but is only the possible view and without doubt the view that any Court would taken had this been a regular civil suit.）
综上所述，法院驳回了原告根据《仲裁法》第34（2A）条和第34（2）（b）（ii）条提出的撤销仲裁裁决的申请。
三、总结
在本案中，原告以裁决明显违法和违反印度公共政策为由请求撤销裁决。法院详细阐述了这两项撤销裁决的理由的检验标准。裁决“明显违法”包括以下三类：（1）违反印度实体法；（2）违反《仲裁法》；（3）违反《仲裁法》第28（3）条。裁决“违反印度公共政策”的检验标准是：裁决必须体现一种明智的做法，没有明显的反常。裁决不得违背正义或道德。
另外，法院在本案重申，法院在审理第34条申请时有以下限制：（a）法院在对仲裁裁决适用“公共政策”理由时不作为上诉法院，因而不能纠正事实错误。（2）仲裁员是评估证据的数量和质量的唯一裁判，仲裁员基于事实可能得出的观点必能通过审查。（3）证据不充分不能成为法院干预的理由。根据《仲裁法》第34（2）条，法院不得对事实进行重新审查，以查明是否可以作出不同的决定。（4）只有当裁决对法院的良知造成冲击时，才可以撤销该裁决。（5）违法必须触及根源，法院不能对微不足道的违法进行干预。仲裁员对合同条款的合理解释不受法院干涉。解释错误属于仲裁员的管辖范围。因此，没有理由进行干涉。（6）如果对合同条款有两种可能的解释，则必须接受仲裁员的解释，法院根据第34条不能以其意见取代仲裁员的意见。