Pam Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (2019) 8 SCC 112

👉Section 18 of the Act mandates arbitrators to perform their functions impartially by treating the parties equally and giving full opportunity to each party to present their case. Failure to provide a party with a full opportunity to present its case renders the award vulnerable to challenge under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Act.

Pam Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (2019) 8 SCC 112
👉The Supreme Court considered whether while determining an application for stay under Section 36 of the Act, differential treatment is to be granted to the Government akin to the provisions of the CPC. The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, holding that Section 36 does not provide for any special treatment to the Government. The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of the CPC will only act as directory or guiding factor in an arbitral proceeding.

👉The Act is a self-contained code and the provisions of the CPC will apply only insofar as the same are not inconsistent with the spirit of the Act. While the CPC provides for a differential treatment to the government in certain cases, the same may not be so applicable while considering a case against the government under the Act.

👉Therefore, the Supreme Court distinguished between the privileges granted under the CPC to the government as an entity which protects public interest as opposed to arbitration proceedings, where the government participates in a commercial capacity.

#arbitration #opportunity #supremecourt