LANDMARK CASE

ONGC v. Saw Pipes

(2003) 5 SCC 705 · Supreme Court of India · Arbitration

At a glance

Citation: (2003) 5 SCC 705
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Arbitration
In one line: Public policy includes patent illegality, so the award was set aside.

1 Facts

An arbitral award refused liquidated damages for delay.

2 Issue

What does 'public policy' mean for setting aside awards?

3 What the court decided

Public policy includes patent illegality, so the award was set aside.

4 Why it matters

Widened court interference, later narrowed by amendments in 2015.

5 Think about it

How did the 2015 amendment change this?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Arbitration

Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services (2012) 9 SCC 552
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading (2002) 4 SCC 105
Perkins Eastman Architects v. HSCC (India) (2020) 20 SCC 760
Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI (2019) 15 SCC 131
TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects (2017) 8 SCC 377

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (Niyamgiri) →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.