Abstract
Abstract This paper delves into the intriguing evolution of patent illegality in Indian arbitration law, a concept formalized by the Supreme Court in the Saw Pipes case and later refined by the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Analysing 699 cases from 2016 to 2023 reveals a striking 29.38 per cent success rate for arguments based on patent illegality. Despite the Supreme Court’s intent to restrict its scope, lower courts often delve into case merits under this guise. Key rulings like Ssangyong Engineering and Delhi Airport Metro Express highlight the judiciary’s struggle to maintain this balance. The study critiques the inconsistent application of standards under patent illegality, leading to contradictory verdicts and threatening arbitration finality. Overall, this analysis underscores the critical need for clearer judicial guidelines to ensure a balanced approach that respects both the autonomy of arbitral awards and the supervisory role of the judiciary. The findings suggest that current judicial practices may inadvertently expand the scope of patent illegality, thus necessitating reforms to align with the intended legislative framework.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call