#Fraud in Arbitration

Bombay HC holds that commercial disputes involving fraud remain arbitrable unless the fraud affects public interest or involves serious criminal offenses. The court set aside the arbitrator's jurisdictional objection, emphasizing that mere allegations of fraud or third-party involvement do not render a dispute non-arbitrable under the Vidya Drolia test.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that arbitrator bias, even with public evidence like attendance at events, does not meet the threshold of 'fraud' under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act to warrant an unconditional stay of a ₹765.78 crore award. The court granted a conditional stay pending deposit of security, setting a precedent on the narrow interpretation of fraud in arbitration enforcement.

Calcutta High Court ruled that an arbitral award lacking a signed copy delivered to parties is void ab initio, rendering it unenforceable. The court upheld fraud and patent illegality where no evidence of arbitration proceedings existed, setting aside awards marred by procedural irregularities and internal contradictions.