Use Of Separate Liability Awards
1. Meaning of Separate Liability Awards
A separate liability award is:
A binding decision by the tribunal
That determines whether a party is liable
While postponing:
Assessment of damages
Quantification of claims
It is also referred to as:
Partial award
Interim award on liability
Bifurcated award
2. Purpose and Advantages
(A) Procedural Efficiency
Avoids unnecessary evidence on quantum if no liability exists.
(B) Cost Saving
Reduces litigation expenses in complex technical claims.
(C) Strategic Clarity
Parties understand their legal position early.
(D) Facilitation of Settlement
Liability determination often leads to settlement before quantum stage.
3. Legal Basis
Section 31(6)
Tribunal may make an interim arbitral award at any time.
Section 2(1)(c)
“Arbitral award” includes interim awards.
Thus, a liability award:
Has the same legal status as a final award
Can be challenged under Section 34
4. Judicial Interpretation (Case Laws)
1. McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
Recognized:
Tribunal’s power to issue partial awards.
Arbitration can proceed in stages (liability + quantum).
Emphasized efficiency and flexibility.
2. ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.
Though primarily on public policy, Court acknowledged:
Interim/partial awards are legally enforceable.
Can be challenged independently.
3. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. v. Bhadra Products
Landmark ruling:
Interim award deciding limitation issue is a final determination on that issue.
Such awards are separately challengeable under Section 34.
Clarified status of partial awards as final on decided issues.
4. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. Tuff Drilling Pvt. Ltd.
Observed:
Arbitration may proceed in phases.
Tribunal retains continuity even across procedural changes.
Supports staged adjudication including liability-first approach.
5. National Thermal Power Corporation v. Singer Company
Recognized:
Arbitrators can decide distinct issues separately.
Early determination of core issues promotes efficiency.
6. State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co.
Court accepted:
Arbitrator may pass interim awards on specific claims/issues.
Such awards are binding unless set aside.
7. Kvaerner Cementation India Ltd. v. Bajranglal Agarwal
Reinforced:
Courts should not interfere mid-arbitration.
Tribunal has autonomy to structure proceedings, including issue-wise awards.
5. Nature and Effect of Liability Awards
(A) Finality on Decided Issue
Liability finding is conclusive and cannot be reopened later.
(B) Binding Effect
Tribunal must proceed to quantum consistent with liability finding.
(C) Separate Challenge
Can be challenged independently under Section 34.
(D) Enforceability
Can be enforced like a final award (subject to challenge period).
6. Bifurcation of Proceedings
When Tribunals Use It
Complex construction disputes
Infrastructure contracts
International commercial arbitration
Multi-issue disputes
Factors Considered
Whether liability issue is distinct and separable
Potential for saving time and cost
Agreement of parties (preferred but not mandatory)
7. Risks and Criticism
(A) Fragmentation of Proceedings
Multiple challenges → delays
(B) Increased Costs (sometimes)
If bifurcation is unnecessary
(C) Strategic Misuse
Parties may delay by challenging interim awards
8. When Bifurcation is Appropriate
Suitable Cases
Clear legal issue (e.g., limitation, breach)
Technical quantum requiring expert evidence
Unsuitable Cases
Liability and quantum are intertwined
Evidence overlaps significantly
9. Practical Illustration
Example 1
Tribunal decides:
Contractor breached contract → liable
Quantum (damages) decided later
→ Valid separate liability award
Example 2
Tribunal decides limitation issue first
→ Interim award (final on limitation)
10. Conclusion
The use of separate liability awards reflects the flexibility and efficiency of arbitration:
Legally recognized under Indian law
Encouraged by courts in appropriate cases
Binding and enforceable like final awards
However, tribunals must exercise this power judiciously, ensuring:
No unnecessary fragmentation
No prejudice to parties
Overall procedural efficiency
RELATED Blog
comments