- (1.) THIS appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge of this court, dismissing the petition seeking to set aside the arbitral award, dated 11. 02. 1999.
(2.) THE Court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered the materials available. The award came to be passed under the following circumstances. A claim was made by the respondent herein with the allegations that the appellant/petitioner Company approached respondent for the purchase of plant and machineries; that the respondent agreed to provide an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs on certain terms and conditions and on payment of security deposit; that as per the agreement, the appellant has to pay Rs. 25,00,000/-; that pursuant to the agreement, dated 30. 10. 1993, the respondent gave Rs. 45,39,507/- to the Company, wherefrom the machineries was to be purchased; that despite the payment of Rs. 45,39,507/- was made, the appellant has breached the contract and has not paid the sums and hence, as per the agreement, not only sums paid by the respondents were recoverable, but also interest and damages and thus, made a claim.
(3.) THE claim was resisted by the appellant. The Arbitral Tribunal, consisting of a Chairman and 2 members, on appraisal of the materials available, made an award, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 84,07,116. 16. Aggrieved over the said award, the appellant has challenged the same by way of O. P. , in question, before the learned Single Judge on the following grounds: a) The arbitral award dealt with the dispute not contemplated under the arbitral agreement. b) Arbitral Tribunal was wrong in concluding that the transaction was one of loan and not lease finance facility. c) The decision of the tribunal was beyond the scope of reference to the arbitration. d) The arbitral award was in conflict with the public policy of India. e) Counter claim of the petitioner was not at all considered and granting the benefit of depreciation was contrary to all its findings that the transaction was only finance transaction. ;