### Section 34 Court is empowered to set aside purported awards that are non-existent or vitiated by fraud.

The petitioner challenge two purported arbitral awards dated September 17 and 21, 2020, which dismissed its claims against the respondent.

The petitioner alleges that no arbitral proceedings ever occurred and that the "awards" are products of fraud disclosed only during NCLT proceedings in 2024.

Following financial irregularities by previous management, the RBI had appointed an Administrator over the petitioner, leading to a CIRP and new management.

The learned Arbitrator, upon inquiry, claimed to have returned all records but retained the originals, demanding costs only from the petitioner.

The respondent failed to produce original or signed copies of the awards, relying instead on photocopies and a disputed Section 21 notice.

The court applied Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates delivery of a signed copy of the award to each party.

It relied on Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors to hold that delivery is a matter of substance, not formality, and sets the limitation period in motion.

Regarding judicial intervention, it considered Section 5 and the restricted scope of Section 34, while interpreting "arbitral award" to include "purported award" to prevent an absolute legal vacuum.

It also followed State of Chhattisgarh v. SAL Udyog (P) Ltd. regarding the court's power to find patent illegality under Section 34(2-A).

The court reasoned that since Section 31(5) requires delivery of a "signed copy" to trigger limitation under Section 34(3), and no such signed copy was ever delivered or produced by the respondent, the limitation period never commenced.

Addressing the jurisdictional challenge, the Court held that while Section 34 typically presupposes an award, it must be "read up" to include "purported awards" to fulfill the Act’s objective of minimizing civil court interference.

On merits, the Court drew an adverse inference against the respondent for failing to produce any arbitral records (minutes, pleadings, or evidence) despite the Arbitrator claiming she returned them to the parties.

The Court found the awards contradictory—citing a non-existent "joint reference"—and noted that the respondent’s subsequent correspondence never mentioned the awards, instead discussing "reconciliation" of dues.

It found the awards were induced or affected by fraud and were in conflict with basic notions of morality and justice under Section 34(2)(b)(ii), Explanations 1(i) and (iii).

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

The applications for stay and other connected reliefs were disposed of as infructuous.