### Section 34 Court is empowered to set aside a non-existent or fraudulent award as being against public policy.

The petitioner filed applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging two purported arbitral awards dated September 17 and 21, 2020.

The petitioner alleged the awards were fraudulent and non-existent in law.

The petitioner’s previous management was replaced by an RBI-appointed Administrator following financial irregularities, leading to a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The petitioner claimed it first learned of the awards from photocopies filed by the respondent before the NCLT in 2024.

When queried, the Arbitrator claimed to have returned all records to the parties while retaining the original awards, yet the respondent failed to produce any arbitral records, minutes, or signed copies of the awards.

The court relied on Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act, which mandates delivery of a signed copy of the award to each party.

It applied Section 34(3) regarding the three-month limitation period, as interpreted in *Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors*, which held that delivery is a matter of substance, not formality.

The court referenced Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Explanations 1(i) and (iii) regarding awards induced by fraud or in conflict with basic notions of morality and justice.

It also considered the principle of *ubi jus ibi remedium* to interpret the scope of Section 34 to include "purported" awards to prevent parties from being remediless.

The court reasoned that while Section 34 literally refers to "an arbitral award," a restrictive interpretation would force parties to file lengthy civil suits, defeating the Act's objective of speedy resolution.

Therefore, the term "award" must include "purported award".

On limitation, the court found that since no signed copies were ever delivered to the petitioner (only photocopies provided by the respondent), the limitation period under Section 34(3) never commenced.

Regarding the merits, the court drew an adverse inference against the respondent for failing to produce a single procedural document (minutes, pleadings, or evidence) from the alleged arbitration.

The Arbitrator’s demand for venue charges during a COVID-19 lockdown and contradictions regarding her appointment (joint vs. unilateral) further suggested the proceedings were manufactured.

It ruled that an award based on non-existent proceedings shocks the judicial conscience and is in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34(2)(b)(ii).

Consequently, the court allowed AP-COM Nos. 529 and 530 of 2024, setting aside the awards dated September 17 and 21, 2020.

The stay applications under Section 36(2) were disposed of as moot since there were no valid awards to enforce.