Tuesday, 4 March 2014

taxation law

SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES

Introduction:-
 The public finance domain of Economics deals with principles/cannons of taxations. There are various models of Taxation but in the developing economies progressive system of taxation has been advocated which means a person having larger income should contribute more to the public exchequer in comparison to the person having lesser income.

While dealing with the subject, it has been envisaged that if a person has profits/income he should pay taxes if he has profit and losses simultaneously he should pay tax on net profit after deducting the losses and if he has resultant loss or only loss he is not required to pay taxes. However, due to the complexity and need it has been thought of to incorporate the provisions relating to set off and carry forward of losses. Additional complexity has been created and the losses have been restricted to be set off due to greediness of the legislators and tax administrators.

The set off and carry forward of losses can be sub divided into two broad categories:-[1]
 1. Set off of losses.
2. Carry forward and Set off of losses.

SET OFF OF LOSSES:-
 The set off of losses are further sub divided in two categories:-

1. Set off within the same head of income or inter head set off.
2. Set off against other heads of income or intra head set off.



Set off within the same head of income or inter head set off (section 70)[2]
 According to section 70, if there is a net result of loss from any source of income during any assessment year the loss can be set off against the income of any other source within same head of income.

Exceptions:-
 1. Loss from speculation business.
2. Long term capital loss w.e.f AY 2004.
3. Loss from activity of owning and maintaining race horses.
4. No loss can be set off against gains from winning from lotteries, crosswords,
puzzles, card games or other gambling.

This implies
·         Loss from one house property can be set off against the income of other house property.
·         Loss from non speculative business can be set off against income of speculative or non speculative business.
·         Short term capital loss can be set off any capital gain (LT/ST).
·         Loss under the head income from other sources can be set off against other incomes except owning and marinating of race horses and gains from winning from lotteries, crosswords, puzzles, card games or other gambling.

 Set off against other heads of income or intra head set off (section 71)[3].
 According to section 71, if there is a net result of loss in respect of any head of income during any assessment year the loss can be set off against the income of any other head of income.
Exceptions:-
1. Loss from speculation business.
2. Losses under head capital gains.
3. Losses from the business of owning and maintaining of race horses.
4. Loss from business/profession cannot be set of against income under head salaries (2005-06).
5. Loss from exempt income (loss of profit must be loss of taxable profit).
6. No loss can be set off against gains from winning from lotteries, crosswords, puzzles, card games or other gambling (section 58(4)[4]).

 CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF LOSSES:-
If a loss cannot be set off either under the same head or under the different heads due to absence/adequacy of the income during the same year, such loss may be carried forward to the next year to be set off against the income of that year.
In the present context the losses can be carried forward to be set off against the income e other subsequent year is possible in the following heads of income:-
 1. Loss from house property.
 2. Loss from business and profession:-
a) Loss from non speculation business.
b) Loss from speculation business.
c) Loss on account of depreciation, Capital Expenditure on Scientific Research and Family Planning.
3. Loss on account of capital gain:-
a) Loss on account of short term capital gain.
b) Loss on account of long term capital gain.
 4. Loss from other sources:-
a) Only from the activity of owning and maintaining race horses.

 Carry forward and set off of losses from HOUSE PROPERTY:-
 In terms of section 71B[5] inserted w.e.f. 1999-2000, it provides that if the loss from the house property cannot be set off in the year in which it has occurred will be carried forward to be set off against the income of 8 assessment years subsequent to the assessment year in which the loss was first computed.

Key points
·         The loss can be carried forward and set off only prior to assessment year 1999-2000.
·         No necessity to file return in time.
·         No need to hold the house property in the year of set off

 Carry forward and set off of losses of BUSINESS AND PROFESSION:-
 Non speculation business:
 The business loss other than speculation loss to the extent of not set off u/s 71 can be carried forward to the subsequent years unless it is set off but not exceeding 8 assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year in which the loss was first computed.
 Key points
·         It is not necessary that the business should be continued (w. e. f. 2000-01)
·         Business profit also includes business activity assessable under other head. (sec2 (22)(e)[6]).
·         The assessee must be same (exceptions are there).
·         Loss must be determined in terms of the return filed by the assessee.
·         The delay in filing loss return may be condoned in terms of Circular No. 8/2001 dated 16/5/2001.

Priority of set off
 (a) Current year depreciation, Capital Expenditure on Scientific Research & Family Planning.
(b) Brought forward Business loss.
(c) Brought forward depreciation, Capital Expenditure on Scientific Research & Family Planning.

Key Points:
·         Loss and depreciation of the proprietary business merged into firm, the firm is not entitled to carry forward loss and depreciation. However, the proprietor can is entitled to carry forward.
·         In case of inheritance, the legal heir is entitled to carry forward the loss for balance numbers of years. Section 78(2)[7] does not permit carry forward the depreciation.
·         Legal heirs can form the partnership firm to carry out the proprietary business of the deceased. The partnership firm can carry forward the losses of the proprietary business of the decreased. [CIT vs. Madhukant M. Mehta (2001 247 ITR 805 SC)][8]
·         Loss form non taxable source cannot be carried forward [Harprasad & Pvt Co. Ltd.(SC)][9][10].

Speculation business
 In terms of explanation 2 to the section 28 it is stated that where speculative transactions carried on by a assessee are of such a nature as to constitute a business, the business (hereinafter referred to as “speculation business”) shall be deemed to be distinct and separate from any other business.
 In terms of section 43(5) a “speculative transactions” means a transaction in which a contract for purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips:

Provided that for the purposes of this clause-
(a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured by him or merchandise sold by him; or

(b) a contract in respect of stocks and shares entered into by dealer or investor therein to guard against loss in his holding of stocks and shares through price fluctuations; or

(c) a contract entered into by a member of a forward market or a stock exchange in the course of any transaction in the nature of jobbing or arbitrage to guard against loss which may arise in the ordinary course of his business as such member, [or]

(d) an eligible transaction in respect of trading in derivatives referred to in clause [(ac)][11][12] of section 2 of the securities contracts (regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) carried out in a recognized stock exchange;]
 Shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction.



Analysis of amendment made by Finance Act, 2005

The explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2005 explains the rationale of introduction of the provisions as follows:
 “Under the existing provisions [clause (5) of section 43], a transaction for the purchase and the sale of any commodity including stock and shares is deemed to be a ‘speculative transaction’, if it settled otherwise than by actual delivery.
However, certain categories of transaction are excluded from the purview of the said provision. Further, the unabsorbed speculation losses are allowed to be carried forward for 8 years for set off against speculation profit in subsequent years. The screen based computerized trading provides for an excellent audit trail. Therefore, the present distinction between speculative and non speculative transactions particularly relating to derivatives is no more required.
 The proposed amendment, therefore, seeks to provide an eligible transaction carried out in respect of trading in derivatives in a recognized stock exchange shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction.”
 A transaction shall be regarded as eligible transaction in derivatives and thus not being considered as speculative transaction only if following conditions are satisfied:
(a) It is carried electronically on screen based system.
(b) It is carried out through a duly registered stock-broker, sub-broker or other intermediary.
(c) It is carried out in accordance with the SEBI act the SCRA, the Depositories Act and rules framed under these acts.
(d) It is carried on a recognized stock exchange.
(e) It is supported by a duly stamped contract note issued by such stock broker or sub-broker or other intermediary to its client.
(f) The contract note indicates the unique client identity number.
(g) The contract note indicates the PAN.
Once a derivative transaction is regarded as part of non speculative business income, it will form part profit and gains of business or profession. Some of the consequences of this are:
a. Interest on margin money will be allowable as a deduction for computation of business income.
 b. Business loss on derivatives transactions can be set off against other business profit (but not against Salary income).
Note: it may be noted that the losses on derivatives trading were treated as speculation losses upto a/y 2005-06. The profit/losses on derivative trading are treated as normal business income/losses from a/y 2006-07. 7. Therefore the losses on derivative incurred upto a/y 2005-06 can not be setoff against the profit form derivative trading in a/y 2006-07 and future assessment years speculation losses can’t be setoff against non-Section 73:
 (a) The loss of a speculation business shall be set off only against the profits and gains of another speculation business.
(b) The loss to the extent not set off shall be carried forward to the next assessment year and set-off against the profits from speculation business of the next assessment year.
(c) The loss form speculation business can be carried forward for four assessment years.
 In respect of allowance on account of depreciation or capital expenditure on scientific research, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72[13] shall apply in relation to speculation business as they in relation to any other business.

Explanation to Section 73:
 Where any part of the business of a company consists of sale and purchase of shares, such company for the purposes of section 73, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of sale and purchase of shares.

This shall not apply to the following companies:-
i. Investment company i.e. the company whose total income mainly consists of income from house property, capital gain and income from other sources.
ii. Company whose principal business is of banking or of granting loan & advances.
Key Notes:-  
1. Penalty for non performance of a contract can not be treated as speculative loss.
2. The purchase and sales of shares against delivery will also constitute speculative business.
3. The shares are different from units of mutual fund/uti.
4. The loss on sale of units will be treated as normal loss.

 Brought forward depreciation, Capital Expenditure on Scientific Research & Family Planning.
 Set off & carry forward of losses under above heads are governed by sec 32(2)[14] of the income tax act, 1961. Accordingly these can be carried forward indefinitely.
 Note:- The depreciation can be carried forward even if return is not filled in time. { Haryana hotels, Punjab & Haryana H.C.}[15]

 Carry forward and set off of losses of Capital Gains:-
 If the net result of computation under the head capital gain is a loss, such loss can be carried forward & set off as under:-
1. Upto asstt. Year 2002-03 Long term capital loss can be set off against any capital gain whether long term or short term.
2. From asstt. Year 2003-04, long term capital loss can be set off against long term capital gains only.
3. Short term capital loss can be set off against long term & short term capital gains.
4. The losses under the head capital gain can’t be set off from other heads of income. It can be carried forward for 8 next asstt. years for set off.
5. The return is required to be filled with in time prescribed under sec 139[16] of the income tax act, 1961.

Carry forward and set off of losses & depreciation in case of
Amalgamation, Conversion, Merger & Demerger, (Sec 72A, 72AA, 72AB):-
 As a matter of general principle the carry forward & set off is permitted to a person who has incurred these losses. However, there are exceptions to this rule as under:-
1. Amalgamation of companies
2. Demerger
3. Conversion of proprietary concern/ firm into a company
4. Amalgamation of a banking company with banking institution.
5. Merger/Demerger of cooperative banks

Conditions to be satisfied:-
1. Amalgamation:-
a. Eligible assessee:- 1. company owing industrial undertaking (see note below) or a ship or a hotel,
2. Banking company under banking regulation act, 1949 with a specified bank,
3. Public sector airlines with other public sector airlines.

b. The amalgamating company has been engaged in the business in which the accumulated loss occurred or depreciation remains unabsorbed for 3 years or more years.

c. The amalgamating company has held continuously as on the date of amalgamation at least three-fourths of the book value of fixed assets held by it two years prior to the date of amalgamation.

d. The amalgamated company continues to hold at least three-fourths of the book value of fixed assets of the amalgamating company which it has acquired as a result of amalgamation for five years from the effective date of amalgamation.

e. The amalgamated company continues the business of the amalgamated company for a minimum period of 5 years.

f. Any other condition as may be prescribed.
 If the above specified conditions are not fulfilled, then that part of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation which has been set off by the amalgamated company shall be treated as the income of the amalgamated company.
 Note:- Additional conditions under Rule 9C[17] for industrial undertaking:-

a. The amalgamated company, owning an industrial undertaking of the amalgamating company by way of amalgamation, shall achieve the level of production of at least 50% of the installed capacity within 4 years from the date of amalgamation and continue it till the end of 5 years from the date of amalgamation. However, the C.G. may relax the condition of minimum level of production or time period in suitable cases having regard to genuine efforts made by the amalgamated company to attain the prescribed level of production and the circumstances preventing such conditions.

b. The amalgamated company shall furnish to the A.O. a certificate in Form No. 62, duly verified by an accountant, with reference to the books of accounts and other documents showing particulars of production, along with return of income for the assessment year relating to the previous year during which the prescribed level of production is achieved and for subsequent assessment years relevant to the previous year falling within 5 yrs from the date of amalgamation.

2. Demerger:-
 In case of demerger, the accumulated loss and unabsorbed of the demerged company will be allowed to be carried forward and set off in the hands of the resulting company.
 Central govt. may specify conditions as it consider necessary to ensure that demerger is for genuine business purposes.

Computation of loss/depreciation to be carried forward to the demerged company:-
 If the loss/depreciation is directly relatable to the undertaking transferred to the resulting company, them such loss/depreciation shall be allowed to be carried forward in the hands of the resulting company.
 Where however, such loss/depreciation is not directly relatable to the undertaking transferred to the resulting company, them such loss/depreciation it will be apportioned between the demerged and the resulting company.



3. Loss in case of Conversion of proprietary concern/ firm into a company (Sec 72A(4)):-
 Sub section (4) has been inserted with effect from the A.Y. 1999-2000 which states that in case of succession of a business where a firm is succeeded by a company fulfilling the conditions u/s 47 (xiii)[18] or a proprietary concern is succeeded by a company fulfilling the conditions u/s 47 (xiv)[19], the accumulated loss and the unabsorbed depreciation of the predecessor firm or proprietary concern as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the successor company for the previous year in which the business reorganization took place.
 If the specified conditions u/s 47(xiii) and 47(xiv) are not complied with, then brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation which has been set off shall be treated as the income of the successor company chargeable to tax in the year in which such conditions are not complied with.
 One of the conditions for carry forward of the loss of the firm is that the aggregate of the shareholding in the company of the partners of the firm is not less than 50 per cent of the total voting power in the company and their shareholdings continues to be as such for a period of 5 years from the date of the succession.


4. Amalgamation of a banking company with banking institution:
 Section 72AA[20] has been inserted with effect from the A.Y. 2005-06 for providing carry forward & set off of the accumulated loss and the unabsorbed depreciation of a banking company, against the profits pf a banking institution under a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Central Government.

Section 72AA would be applicable if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. There is an amalgamation of a “banking company” with any other “banking institution”. Banking company for this purpose means a company which transacts the business of banking in India. A banking institution for this purpose means any banking company and includes State Bank of India or a scheduled bank.
2. The amalgamation is sanctioned and brought into force by the Central Government u/s 45(7)[21] of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949.
3. The provisions of section 2(1b)(i)/(ii)/(iii) may or may not be satisfied.
4. The provisions of section 72A may or may not be satisfied.
 Accumulated loss does not include speculative business loss. 
5. Accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in business reorganization of cooperative banks (Sec 72AB, w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09): -

The successor cooperative bank can set off and carry forward loss and depreciation allowance of the predecessor cooperative bank if following conditions are satisfied:-
A. The predecessor has been engaged in the business of banking for three or more years.
B. The Predecessor has held at least ¾ of the book value of fixed assets of the predecessor acquired through business reorganization, continuously for a minimum period of 5 years immediately succeeding the date of business reorganization.
C. The successor continues the business of the predecessor for a minimum period of 5 years from the date of business reorganization.
D. The successor fulfills such other conditions as may be prescribedSection

78: Carry forward and set off of losses in case of change in the constitution of firm or on succession:-

Sec 78(1) Change in the constitution:-
When a change has occurred in the constitution of a firm, then nothing shall entitle the firm to have carry forward and set off so much of the loss proportionate to the share of the retired or deceased partner as exceeds his share of profits, if any, of the previous year in the firm. No partner can also avail the benefit of the said loss.

Sec 78(2) Succession:-
  Where any person carrying on any business or profession has been succeeded to in such capacity by another person otherwise than by inheritance, nothing in the chapter VI shall entitle any person other than the person incurring the loss to have it carried forward and set off against his income.

Special provisions for set off & carry forward of losses in case of certain companies(Sec. 79):-
1. Applicable to companies in which the public is not substantially interested.
2. There has been a change in the shareholding pattern in the previous year.
3. No loss incurred prior to the previous year unless:-
a. At least 51% shares must be held by the previous beneficial owners having voting power in the year in which the loss was incurred.
b. Nothing contained in this section applies in case of death of a shareholder or gift by a shareholder to his relative.
c. Nothing contained in this section will apply to an Indian company which is a subsidiary of a foreign company on account of amalgamation or demerger of the foreign company.

Sec. 80 Submission of return for losses:-
If a return has not been filled in accordance with the section 139(3), the loss shall not be carried forward & set off under the sections 72, 73, 74 & 74A




Conclusion:
Set-off of losses means setting-off losses against the income of the same year. Where it is not possible to set-off the losses during the same assessment year in which they occurred, so much of the loss as has not been so set-off (only certain specified losses) can be carried forward for being set-off against his income in the succeeding years. Set-off can be inter source and Inter-head. Inter-source means when loss of one source is set-off against the income of some other source under the same head of income. Inter-head means when a loss remains unabsorbed from inter-source set-off, the balance of it can be set-off against income under other head of income.
If both the adjustments are not possible then certain losses namely loss from house property, loss from business including speculation business, capital loss, and loss from activity of maintaining race horses can be carried forward.



[1] www.icia.org
[2] Set off of loss from one source against income from another source under the same head of income.
[3] Set off of loss from one head against income from another.
[4]  In the case of an assessee having income chargeable under the head" Income from other sources", no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance in connection with such income shall be allowed under any provision of this Act in computing the income by way of any winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or form, gambling or betting of any form or nature, whatsoever: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall apply in computing the income of an assessee, being the owner of horses maintained by him for running in horse races, from the activity of owning and maintaining such horses. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section," horse race" means a horse race upon which wagering or betting may be lawfully made.
[5] Where for any assessment year the net result of computation under the head “Income from house property” is a loss to the assessee and such loss cannot be or is not wholly set off against income from any other head of income in accordance with the provisions of section 71, so much of the loss as has not been so set-off or where he has no income under any other head, the whole loss shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, be carried forward to the following assessment year and—
(i) be set off against the income from house property assessable for that assessment year; and
(ii) the loss, if any, which has not been set off wholly, the amount of loss not so set off,
shall be carried forward to the following assessment year, not being more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed.
[6] (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) 5[ made after the 31st day of May, 1987 , by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power, or to any concern, in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest (hereafter in this clause referred to as the said concern)] or any payment by any such company on behalf, or for- the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits; but" dividend" does not include--
(i) a distribution made in accordance with sub- clause (c) or sub- clause (d) in respect of any share issued for full cash consideration, where the holder of the share is not entitled in the event of liquidation to participate in the surplus assets;
[7] Where any person carrying on any business or profession has been succeeded in such capacity by another person otherwise than by inheritance, nothing in this Chapter shall entitle any person other than the person incurring the loss to have it carried forward and set off against his income.
[8] 2001 247 ITR 805 SC
[9] Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd on 25 February, 1975
[10] 1975 AIR 1282, 1975 SCC (3) 868
[11] " contract" means a contract for or relating to the purchase or sale of securities;
[12]  " member" means a member of a recognised stock exchange
[13] Where any allowance or part thereof is, under sub- section (2) of section 32 or sub- section (4) of section 35, to be carried forward, effect shall first be given to the provisions of this section
[14] Where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect cannot be given to any allowance under sub-section (1) in any previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year29, or owing to the profits or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if there is no such allowance for that previous year, be deemed to be the allowance for that previous year, and so on for the succeeding previous years.]
[15]  (2005) 197 CTR P H 449, 2005 276 ITR 521 P H
[16] Return of income
[17] Conditions for carrying forward or set-off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in case of amalgamation
[18] any transfer of a capital asset or intangible asset by a firm to a company as a result of succession of the firm by a company in the business carried on by the firm, or any transfer of a capital asset to a company in the course of  [demutualisation or] corporatisation of a recognised stock exchange in India as a result of which an association of persons or body of individuals is succeeded by such company
[19] where a sole proprietary concern is succeeded by a company in the business carried on by it as a result of which the sole proprietary concern sells or otherwise transfers any capital asset or intangible asset to the company
[20] Provisions relating to carry forward and set-off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in scheme of amalgamation of banking company in certain cases
[21] The scheme shall thereafter be placed before the Central Government for its sanction and the Central Government may sanction the scheme without any modifications or with such modifications as it may consider necessary; and the scheme as sanctioned by the Central Government shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may specify in this behalf Provided that different dates may be specified for different provisions of the scheme

public policy in international commercial arbitration

PUBLIC POLICY IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

INTRODUCTION:
The basic purpose of arbitration is to bring about cost-effective and expeditious resolution of disputes and further preventing multiplicity of litigation by giving finality to an arbitral award. The article ambidextrously and comprehensively analyzes India’s Commitment and challenge to the International Arbitration in the era of globalization when the investment by the foreign entities is at the peak.

Public Policy of India has most important role in the whole process of enforcement of an arbitral awards particularly the foreign awards because it involves parties, lawyers and arbitrators form diverse legal &cultural traditions. Most often the arbitral tribunal consists of arbitrators from multiple jurisdictions & legal traditions different from those of parties and of their council. It is thus desirable that the International Companies/firms working in India as Joint venture or otherwise should be fully aware for the law on public policy of India and its impact on arbitration awards. 

Arbitration continues to grow at a rapid pace, antitrust cases in particular are increasingly being arbitrated; and the law is still evolving in relation to the tension between the domestic legitimate claims of a nation and the arbitral finality given to an International arbitral award. Further when the arbitration proceedings are in themselves requiring a judicial process by producing the evidence and giving the parties opportunity of hearing, why should the court at this level interfere with the decision frustrating the very purpose of arbitration? If disputes are going to end up in courts anyway, there is scant incentive for parties to bother to arbitrate in the first instance. What should be the realm of judicial interference in such arbitral awards and where should it meet the barricades. A supportive yet non-interventionist approach without undue interference should be adopted by the courts to facilitate an efficient arbitral process within the permissible or jurisdictional limits.
Definition of Public Policy:

The Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 or the Contract Act, 1872 do not define the expression “Public Policy” or “opposed to public policy.” “Public Policy” is not the policy of a particular Govt. It connotes some matter which concerns the public good or the public interest. 

‘Public Policy’ is equivalent to the “Policy of Law.” Therefore any acts that have a mischievous tendency so as to be injurious to the interest of the state or the public is stated to be against “Public Policy” or against the ‘Policy of Law.” 

In the case of 
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd v. General Electric Co. the Apex Court has held that the Expression ‘Public Policy’ has a wider meaning in the context of a domestic award as distinguished from a foreign award.”

The concept of the ‘Public Policy’ denotes that what is good for the public or in public Interest or what would be injurious or harmful from time to time. It has very wide and general connotations. Anything that hurts collective consensus is against the ‘Public Policy.’ Hence the Acts in violation of law shall be considered against the ‘Public Policy’.
Public policy can be generally defined as an attempt by the government to address a public issue. According to Lord Truro, “Public policy is that principle of law which holds that no subject can lawfully do, which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good, which may be termed, as it sometimes has been, the policy of the law or public policy in relation to the administration of the law.” Public policy connotes some matter which concerns public good and public interest. The concept of public policy varies from time to time and is open to interpretation

Doctrine of Public Policy:

Doctrine of ‘Public Policy’ is somewhat open textured and flexible, and this flexibility has been the cause of judicial censure of the doctrine. There is a general agreement that the courts may extend existing ‘Public Policy’ to new situations and the difference between extending on existing principle as opposed to creating a new one will often be wafer thin. ‘Public Policy’ is not immutable. Rules which rest on the foundation of ‘Public Policy,’ not being rules which belong to the fixed Customary Law, are capable on proper occasion, of expansion or modification depending upon circumstances. In the broader view, the doctrine of “Public Policy” is equivalent to the “Policy of Law,” whatever leads to obstruction of justice or violation of a statute or is against the good morals when made the object of contract would be against ‘Public Policy of India” and being void, would not be susceptible to enforcement. 

Though misconduct of “Arbitral Tribunal” or of the “proceedings before an arbitral tribunal” and “error of law on the face of an arbitral tribunal award” by themselves are not made as grounds for recourse against an arbitral award under section 34 of the 1996 Act. Interpreting the doctrine of “Public Policy of India” in its broader view, courts of law may intervene permitting recourse against an arbitral award based on irregularity of a kind which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant. Extreme cases where arbitral tribunal has gone so wrong in its conduct of arbitration that justice calls out for it to be corrected may justifiably fall within the ambit of the doctrine of ‘Public Policy of India” to enable courts of law in India to intervene under section 34 of the 1996 Act permitting recourse against arbitral award.

Public Policy of India:

The expression ‘Public Policy’ used in section 48 sub-section 2 refers to the “Public Policy of India” and does not cover policy of the country, whose law governs the contract or of country or of place of arbitration. More contravention of law would not attract bar of Public Policy, but the award must be contrary to;

1) Fundamental Policy of Indian law or
2) The Interest of India or
3) Justice or morality or
4) Patently illegal. (After the case of ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd.)

International Public Policy:

In view of the absence of a workable definition of “International Public Policy” the Supreme Court of India in the case of “Renusagar Power Co Ltd. v. General Electric Co. –while construing section 7 (1) (b) (ii) of the foreign Award Act held that it was difficult to construe the expression ‘Public Policy’ in Article (v) (2) (b) of the New York convention to mean international Public Policy and the said expression must be construed to mean the doctrine of ‘Public Policy’ as applied by the courts in which the foreign award is sought to be enforced and consequently the expression ‘Public Policy’ in section 7 (1) (b) (ii) of the foreign Award Act means the doctrine of Public Policy as applied by the courts in India. This controversy has been set at rest by the legislature now using the expression ‘Public Policy of India” in section 48 (2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Foreign Award and Public Policy:

Enforcement of foreign award, if resulting in violation of Provisions of foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, would be contrary to “Public Policy” as envisaged in section 48 (2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Arbitration Law on “Public Policy”:

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 restrain an Arbitral Tribunal or sole Arbitrator to make any award which is against the Public Policy of India. Various provisions laid down under 1996 Act are briefed here under:- 
Section 34. (2) (b) (ii)
Section 34. (2) (b) (ii) of the said -Act lays down that an Arbitral Award may be set aside if the court finds that the arbitral award is in conflict with the Public Policy of India.” 

Explanation to section 34 of the 1996 Act, without prejudice to the generality of sub-clause (ii), it is here by declared, for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the Public Policy of India if the making of the Award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was violation of Section 75 or Section 81 of 1996 Act. 
 

ARBITRATION:
Arbitration, in law, is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution - specifically, a legal alternative to litigation, whereby the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective positions (through agreement or hearing) to a NEUTRAL third party called the Arbitrator (s) or Arbiter (s) for resolution.
Major kinds of Arbitration
(1)   Ad-hoc Arbitration:
 When a dispute or difference arises between the parties in course of commercial transaction and the same could not be settled friendly by negotiation in form of conciliation or mediation, in such case ad-hoc arbitration may be sought by the conflicting parties. This arbitration is agreed to get justice for the balance of the un-settled part of the dispute only.
The parties may chose to refer the disputes to arbitration under the 1996 Act, independent of any institutional rules. Arbitrations arranged by parties themselves, without recourse to an arbitral institution, are referred to as 'ad hoc arbitrations'2. In India, ad hoc arbitrations usually use retired judges of High Courts and The Supreme Court of India to act as arbitrators. This is because there is a severe dearth of specialized arbitrators in the country.
In our experience, the efficiency of these arbitrations is very low. The retired judges who act as arbitrators are often in their seventies and find it difficult to work at high levels of efficiency. The judges are comfortable adjourning arbitrations like they would in the courts. As such, arbitrations can take up to 3-5 years.
Furthermore, there is usually little continuity between the hearings, as arbitrators are often heavily booked, making it extremely difficult to get continuous dates for hearings. Owing to their long years of training and service, the judges also tend be influenced by procedural statutes like the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act, which have no strict applicability to arbitration proceedings.
(2)   Institutional Arbitration:
This kind of arbitration there is prior agreement between the parties that in case of future differences or disputes arising between the parties during their commercial transactions, such differences or disputes will be settled by arbitration as per clause provide in the agreement.
Institutional arbitration has been defined as an arbitration conducted by an arbitral institution in accordance with prescribed rules of the institution3. The Indian Council of Arbitration is the sole noteworthy Indian body providing facilities for institutional commercial dispute resolution. The Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration are very comprehensive, setting out matters in great detail, often at the risk of appearing ambiguous.
The Council has wide supervisory powers and all communication between the parties and the arbitrators have to be routed through the Council's Registrar. The Council is empowered to reject requests for arbitration without giving any reason, and can also determine any challenge to an arbitrator's eligibility.
A notable feature of conducting arbitration under the Council is the extremely low administrative costs and arbitrators' fees payable. However, the benefits flowing from such low costs and fees are limited in that the established and reputed arbitrators shirk from participating in Arbitrations under the Council, because of the low levels of remuneration that they are entitled to.
Furthermore, arbitrations under the Council often suffer from a lack of efficiency, whilst deadlines are extended with alarming frequency.
(3)   Statutory Arbitration:
It is mandatory arbitration which is imposed on the parties by operation of law. In such a case the parties have no option as such but to abide by the law of land. It is apparent that statutory arbitration differs from the above 2 types of arbitration because
(i) The consent of parties is not necessary;
(ii) It is compulsory Arbitration;
(iii) It is binding on the Parties as the law of land;

For Example:
Section 31 of the North Eastern Hill University Act, 1973, Section 24,31 and 32 of the Defence of India Act, 1971 and Section 43(c) of The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 are the statutory provision, which deal with statutory arbitration.
(4)   Domestic or International Arbitration:
Arbitration which occurs in India and have all the parties within India is termed as Domestic Arbitration. An Arbitration in which any party belongs to other than India and the dispute is to be settled in India is termed as International Arbitration.
(5)   Foreign Arbitration:
When arbitration proceedings are conducted in a place outside India and the Award is required to be enforced in India, it is termed as Foreign Arbitration
International Conventions on Arbitration:[1]
India is a party to the following conventions:

1.The Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923

2.The Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1927:
Under the Geneva Convention, 1927, in order to obtain recognition or enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the requirements of clause (a) to (e) of Article 1 had to be full filled and in Article 2, it was prescribed that even if the conditions laid down in that article were fulfilled recognition & enforcement of the award would be refused if the court was satisfied in respect of matters mentioned in clause (a), (b) and (c) as given hereunder:-

a) The award has been annulled in the Country in which it was made.
b) That the party being under a legal incapacity, he was not properly represented.
c) That the award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration.

The principles which apply to recognition and enforcement of foreign awards are in substance, similar to those adopted by the English court at Common law, It was, however, felt that the Geneva Convention suffered from certain defects which hampered the speedy settlement of disputes through arbitration. 

The New York Convention has sought to remedy the said defects by providing for a much more simple and effective method of obtaining recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. 

3.The New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:
 It became a party to the 1958 Convention on 10th June, 1958 and ratified it on 13th July, 1961.
The York Convention (1958), Art III provides that each contracting State Shall recognize awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules & procedure of the territory, where award is relied upon. Accordingly the procedural laws of the Country in which the award is relied upon would govern the procedural aspect of the filing of foreign award. 

Further, New York Convention (1985) Article. V (2) provides that the enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused, if the law of the Country where the recognition and enforcement is sought finds that.
a) The Subject matter of the difference is not Capable of Settlement by arbitration under the law of that Country or

b) The recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country.

4. UNCITRAL Model law (1985) 

The UNCITRAL model Law (1985), Article 36 (b) provides the grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award, irrespective of the country in which it was made, it may be refused if the court finds that:-

a) The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of Settlement by arbitration under the law of this state, or

b) The recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of this state.

Perusal of the International laws laid down at Geneva Convention, 1927, New York Convention 1958 & UNCITRAL Model Law (1985) reveals that Public Policy of any Country has a great impact on the International/Foreign awards. Therefore, it is desirable that the constructing agency should be conversant with the Public Policy of the Country, where it undertakes construction works.
There are no bilateral Conventions between India and any other country concerning arbitration.

The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (The governing arbitration statute in India)
It was conceived by the compulsions of globalisation. It is based on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in 1985.
Previous statutory provisions on arbitration were contained in three different enactments:
• The Arbitration Act, 1940, the Act which governed the domestic arbitration
• The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 and
• The Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, which governed international arbitral awards.
The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[2] applies to both domestic arbitration in India and to international arbitration. Section 2(1)(f) of the Act defines "International Commercial Arbitration" as arbitration relating to disputes arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in force in India where at least one of the parties is:
1. An individual who is a national of, or habitually resident in any country other than India; or
2. A body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India; or
3. A company or an association or a body of individuals whose central management and control is exercised in any country other than India; or
4. The Government of a foreign country.
The main objectives set out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1996 Act are “to minimise the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process” and “to provide that every final arbitral award is enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court”.
Public policy in relation to international commercial arbitration:[3]
There have been few instances of the use of Public Policy in context of arbitration proceedings. The prominent cases are:
• Renusagar Power Plant Ltd. v. General Electric Co., AIR 1994 SC 860
• ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629; (2003) 5 SCC 705
• Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., AIR 2008 SC 1061 (April)
Renusagar Power Plant Ltd. V. General Electric Co.[4]
Short Facts:
Renusagar Power Plant Ltd. had entered into a contract with General Electric Co., a company incorporated under the laws of State of New York in USA under which it had to supply equipment and power services for setting up a thermal power plant. The said contract was approved by the Government of India. The total price of the contract was US$13,195,000. All the items were to be delivered in 15 months from the effective date and the completion of the plant was to be done within 30 months. The contract provided for payment in installments and also required execution of unconditional negotiable promissory notes for all the installments. The contract contained an arbitration clause which provides that any disagreement arising out of or related to the contract which the parties are unable to resolve by sincere negotiation shall be finally settled in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. It seems there was some delay on the part of General Electric in adhering to the time schedule for supply of equipment and consequently Renusagar rescheduled the payment installments and certain installments were unpaid under due dates.
Case Proceedings:
Renusagar approached the Government of India for approval of the revised schedule regarding the payment of installments which was not approved by the Government of India and Renusagar was asked to take necessary action to make the payment of the past installments immediately. At this stage General Electric initiated arbitration proceedings before the Arbitration Court of ICC. Both the sides filed civil suits in Bombay and Calcutta High Courts. The arbitration proceedings resulted in an award in favour of General Electric and it also awarded compensatory damages and computed the same by applying the average prime rate to the amount withheld. The award came to be challenged on several grounds and one of them was that it was contrary to public policy of India, the reason being the order relating to the payment of interest in particular in foreign exchange would be contrary to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. This case arose in particular under Section 7 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. The Supreme Court was faced with the question whether to give the words ‘public policy' a narrow or a broad meaning.
Final Judgment: After referring to the various decisions of the English, and American courts and quoting classic textbooks on international commercial arbitration the Supreme Court went on to very rightly give narrow interpretation to the words public policy and held that
1. the payment of interest on interest (compound interest),
2. possibility of violation of FERA,
3. payment of damages,
4. possibility of unjust enrichment by General Electric
did not amount to or was not contrary to the public policy of India.
The Supreme Court concluded that “it is obvious that since the Act is calculated and designed to subserve the cause of facilitating international trade and promotion thereof by providing for speedy settlement of disputes arising in such trade through arbitration, any expression or phrase occurring therein should receive, consisting with its literal and grammatical sense, a liberal construction.”
Renusagar thus was very correctly decided; when it took a narrow view of the word ‘public policy' thus leaving little scope of judicial interference in arbitration proceedings and the final determination of awards.
ONGC V. SAW Pipes Ltd.[5]
Short Facts: In this case, ONGC ordered pipes from SAW Pipes Ltd. on certain terms and conditions and for dispute resolution it also had an arbitration clause. Disputes arose as SAW Pipes was unable to conform to the time schedule prescribed for supplies due to the strike of the workers in Europe for almost two months. SAW Pipes informed these facts to ONGC which in turn replied that damages as per the contract would have to be paid. SAW Pipes thereafter supplied the pipes and ONGC deducted a large sum from the bill on account of delay without there being any adjudication or determination by a third party.
Case Proceedings: The matter was referred to arbitration and an order was passed in favor of the respondents. The same was challenged before a single Judge of High Court which dismissed the petition. A further challenge before a division bench was also negated. An appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) came to be heard by two Judges who allowed the appeal and set aside the award. It then considers the facts of the case, and concluded that ONGC was justified in deducting the amount and the arbitrators were wrong in awarding the amount with interest and set aside the award.
The Court held that any arbitral award which violates Indian statutory provisions is “patently illegal” and contrary to “public policy”. By equating “patent illegality” to an “error of law”, the Court effectively paved the way for losing parties in the arbitral process to have their day in Indian courts on the basis of any alleged contraventions of Indian law, thereby resurrecting the potentially limitless judicial review which the 1996 Act was designed to eliminate. The ONGC case's decision was widely criticized in the International community. Three years later the Supreme Court had an opportunity to refer the matter to a larger Bench which it did not though it accepted that ONGC's case had invited considerable adverse comments.
The Bench in Renusagar case held that the term ‘public policy of India' was to be interpreted in a narrow sense, the Division Bench in ONGC case went ahead unmindful of the prior precedent and expanded the same to such an extent that arbitral awards could now be reviewed on their merits. This is a huge step backwards in laws relating to alternate dispute resolution in the era of globalization.
Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd.[6]
Short Facts:
In this case Venture Global Engineering (VGE) incorporated in the USA and Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SCSL) of Hyderabad, India, entered into a joint venture agreement in 1999 to constitute a company named Satyam Venture Engineering Services Ltd. (SVES) in which both VGE and SCSL have 50 per cent equity shareholding. A Shareholders Agreement (SHA) was also executed between the parties on the same day which provides that disputes have to be resolved amicably between the parties and failing such resolution, the disputes are to be referred to arbitration.
Case Proceedings:
In February 2005, disputes arose between the parties. SCSL alleged that the appellant had committed an event of default under the SHA owing to several venture companies becoming insolvent and they had exercised its option to purchase the VGE shares in SVES at its book value. On a request from SCSL, the London Court of International Arbitration appointed an arbitrator and he passed an award directing VGE to transfer the shares to SCSL. SCSL filed a suit for enforcement and recognition of the award before the US District Court of Michigan under the New York Convention, which was allowed to SCSL. Aggrieved, VGE filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to set aside the award and the court passed an interim order of injunction restraining SCSL from seeking or effecting the transfer of shares under the terms of award or otherwise. On appeal from SCSL, the Andhra Pradesh High Court suspended the trial court's order holding that the award cannot be challenged even if it is against the public policy and in contravention of statutory provisions, but made it clear that SCSL would not affect the transfer of shares until further orders. Thereafter, the trial court rejected the suit filed by VGE and the High Court dismissed VGE's appeal. The present civil appeal by VGE in the Supreme Court of India is directed against this order. VGE asserted that the relief in the award violated certain Indian corporate and foreign investment statutes, specifically the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and therefore constituted a “conflict with the public policy of India” pursuant to the general provisions contained in Section 34 of Part I of the Arbitration Act.
Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court in its judgment stated: “The provisions of Part I of the Act (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) would apply to all arbitrations including international commercial arbitrations and to all proceedings relating thereto. We further hold that where such arbitration is held in India, the provisions of Part-I would compulsorily apply and parties are free to deviate to the extent permitted by the provisions of Part-I. It is also clear that even in the case of international commercial arbitrations held out of India provisions of Part-I would apply unless the parties by agreement, express or implied, exclude al or any of its provisions.”
Implications:
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), is divided into four parts. The first two parts consists as follows:
Part I of the 1996 Arbitration Act deals with domestic arbitration, i.e., those arbitrations where the seat of arbitration is in India.

Part II deals with provisions relating to enforcement of New York Convention Awards and Geneva Convention Awards in India.

This has been the basis of all the Arbitration clauses incorporated in the contract between various Indian and Foreign companies until now. However, with the recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Venture Global Engineering v Satyam Computer Services Limited, Part I of the Act is now made applicable to all international commercial arbitrations, which consequently has led to a great deal of mistrust, confusion and uproar amongst the foreign companies.
CONCLUSION
The law of arbitration in India is very much at its crossroads. An eminent personality has commented at the state of affairs of arbitration laws in India as “arbitration in India is not for the faint-hearted”.
The 1996 Act was designed primarily to implement the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and create a pro-arbitration legal regime in India. Prior to its enactment, there was widespread discontent over the excessive judicial intervention allowed by its predecessor, the 1940 Act. The 1996 Act attempted to rectify this problem by narrowing the basis on which awards could be challenged, thereby minimising the supervisory role of courts, ensuring finality of arbitral awards and expediting the arbitration process.
The continued intervention of courts in arbitration is harmful in two ways:[7]
1) In a legal system plagued by delays, a pro-arbitration stance would reduce the pressure on the courts. Recent reports indicate that over 30 million cases are currently pending resolution in India. Arbitration is therefore not just an attractive option for resolving disputes, it is essential to maintaining the integrity of the Indian legal system.
2) For a country seeking to attract foreign investment, it is imperative that its legal system provides efficient and predictable remedies to foreign investors. When commercial parties enter into transactions, they factor in the potential legal costs of enforcing their rights. If a legal system does not hold the promise of speed or certainty, a risk premium is added to the cost of the transaction which, if excessive, may make the transaction commercially unviable. Foreign investors typically prefer arbitration and have shied away from Indian courts due to prolonged delays in litigation.
The recent judgment in the Satyam case has made Part 1 of the 1996 Act applicable to all International arbitrations. Many foreign companies having relevant business interests in India have relied heavily upon Indian law based on the Act itself and already opted for Arbitration procedures. This recent judgment has totally turned over the original intention of the legislators while enacting the Act, thereby infusing a strong feeling of insecurity in dealings of foreign companies with their Indian counterparts.
So, it is largely upto the Indian Judiciary to step in and contain the interventionist role it has assumed for itself and have greater trust in the arbitral process.



[1]  http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/What-next-for-Indian-arbitration/articleshow/1933720.cms?curpg=1
[2] Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
[3] Public Policy International Arbitrations | LawTeacher http://www.lawteacher.net/arbitration-law/essays/public-policy-in-international-arbitrations.php#ixzz2sBP3kW83
[4] Renusagar Power Plant Co. Ltd v. General Electric Co., AIR 1994 SC 860
[5] ONGC v. SAW Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 26299
[6] Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., AIR 2008 SC 1061 (April)
[7] http://www.halsburys.in/judicial-intervention.html