Synopsis

The petitioner (CSP) provided accidental damage cover for laptops and mobiles sold by Sony. After termination of the agreement, Sony invoked arbitration. The tribunal held that Sony had defaulted in timely payment of premiums and furnishing product details, yet awarded substantial compensation based on an expert report. The High Court set aside the award under Section 34, holding that: (i) the tribunal contradicted its own finding of breach by still covering products; (ii) the tribunal rewrote the contract by granting a grace period not agreed; (iii) the quantification was based on guesswork (50% deduction) without evidence; (iv) the expert report was accepted without dealing with objections; and (v) there was no evidence proving accidental damage. The award was held patently illegal and perverse.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 29th April 2026

Citation: O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 (2026:DHC:3597)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 (setting aside arbitral award); Patent illegality, perversity, and award beyond contract terms.

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

O.m.p. (comm) 410 of 2023

Corporate service plan india private limited (petitioner) vs. Sony india private limited (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice avneesh jhingan

Judgment reserved on: 10th april, 2026; pronounced on: 29th april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – section 34 (setting aside award on ground of patent illegality, perversity, and contravention of contract), section 31(3) (duty to give reasoned award)

• Indian contract act, 1872 – principles of interpretation of contract

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.