L.N.MITTAL, J. - (1.) IN this first appeal judgment dated 29.09.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula is under challenge. By the said judgment, petition Annexure A-1 filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act) for setting aside the arbitral award dated 07.09.2011 Annexure P-1 has been dismissed.
(2.) THERE was lease agreement dated 24.01.2007 Annexure P-4 fol- lowed by addendum agreement dated 15.05.2007 Annexure P-6 between ap- pellant and respondent No.1 regarding leasing out some space in a mall by respondent No.1 to the appellant. Dispute arose between the parties. In ac- cordance with arbitration clause XVIII contained in lease agreement Annex- ure P-4, the dispute was referred to the Arbitrators who gave their award dated 07.09.2011 Annexure P-1. Appellant filed objection petition under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the said award on various grounds. Respondent No.1 by filing reply Annexure A-2 controverted the said grounds and defended the award. Learned trial Court vide impugned judg- ment dated 29.09.2012 has dismissed the objection petition filed by appel- lant under Section 34 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, instant first appeal has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the case file with their assistance. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that trial Court has misread the grounds pleaded by the appellant to challenge the award and has also erroneously noticed various contentions raised by the appel- lant. It was even pointed out that contention of respondent No.1 and judg- ment cited on behalf of respondent No.1 have been taken to be on behalf of appellant, by the trial Court. It was thus submitted that the matter is re- quired to be remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication.
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the appellant also contended that the Arbitral Tribunal awarded compensation in place of rent out of fair play, equity and justice, but in view of Section 28(2) of the Act, without consent of the parties, the Arbitral Tribunal could not have granted any such relief in equity. It was thus contended that the impugned award of the Arbitral Tri- bunal is illegal and against public policy. Reliance has been placed on two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. versus Saw Pipes Ltd reported as (2003) 5 Supreme Court cases 705 and Rajinder Krishan Khanna & others versus Union of India and others reported as (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 129.;