### Section 34 Recourse Includes Challenges to "Non-Existent" or Purported Awards Vitiated by Fraud

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

The petitioner, currently under new management following a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), alleged that no such arbitral proceedings ever occurred and the awards were fraudulent fabrications.

The petitioner first learned of the awards in 2024 via photocopies filed by the respondent in NCLT proceedings.

Despite the Arbitrator claiming she returned all records to the parties while retaining the originals, neither party produced signed copies of the awards, minutes of sittings, or pleadings.

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

It relied on *Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors*, holding that receipt of a signed copy is a matter of substance that triggers the limitation period under Section 34(3).

The court also interpreted Sections 34(2)(b) and 34(2-A), distinguishing between grounds a party must "establish" and those a court "finds" based on the record or the face of the award.

The principle of *ubi jus ibi remedium* was applied to ensure the Act provides a remedy against non-existent or fraudulent awards.

The court found the applications were not time-barred because the limitation period under Section 34(3) never commenced due to the failure to deliver signed copies of the awards as required by Section 31(5).

On jurisdiction, the court "read up" the term "arbitral award" in Section 34 to include "purported awards" to prevent parties from being forced into lengthy civil suits, which would defeat the Act's objective of speedy resolution.

Regarding the merits, the court drew an adverse inference against the respondent for failing to produce any evidence of the proceedings—such as sittings, transcripts, or costs—despite the Arbitrator's claim that records were returned to the parties.

Contradictions in the awards regarding the Arbitrator's appointment (joint vs. unilateral) and the respondent’s failure to mention the awards in post-2020 correspondence further suggested the awards were non-existent fabrications.

The court held that the awards were in conflict with the public policy of India as they shocked the judicial conscience and violated basic notions of justice.

Consequently, the purported awards dated September 17, 2020, and September 21, 2020, were set aside as invalid and unenforceable.

The applications for stay under Section 36(2) were disposed of as moot since no valid awards existed to be enforced.