- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant challenging the order dated 10.7.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast-Track) No.7, Jaipur City,Jaipur,(hereinafter referred to as the lower court), in Misc. Application No.53/08 (131/07), whereby the lower court has dismissed the application of the appellant-applicant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996( for short the said Act).
(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-applicant had availed of the loan facility from the respondent bank for the purchase of vehicle being Truck No. AL 2214 to the extent of Rs. 4,20,000/-. It appears that the appellant did not make payment of the monthly installments regularly and therefore, the respondent bank had taken over the possession of the said truck. THE respondent thereafter also filed claim petition before the sole arbitrator as per the agreement entered into between the parties. On the notice having been received by the appellant-applicant, he also appeared before the sole arbitrator on 24.7.2006, and also filed reply on 30.6.2006. THEreafter the arbitrator made an Award on 15.1.2007, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,92,700/- to the respondent bank. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant had approached the lower court by filing an application under Section 34 of the said Act, which came to be dismissed by the lower court, vide the impugned order dated 10.7.2009. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not remain present in the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator as he had to travel all over the country and hence was under the incapacity to appear before the arbitrator. According to him such an exparte award made by the arbitrator was liable to be set-aside under Section 34 of the said Act, however, the lower court has committed an error in dismissing his application. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and to the impugned order passed by the lower court as well as the impugned award passed by the arbitrator, it transpires that the appellant had participated in the arbitral proceedings by filing reply, and that considering the pleadings and the documents on record, the award was made by the arbitrator. It is needless to say that the scope of challenging such an arbitral award is very limited under Section 34(2) of the said Act. Such an award could be set-aside if the party making application under Section 34 furnishes the proof that the party was under some incapacity. In the instant case, the appellant-applicant had failed to prove that he was under any incapacity, which had prevented him from appearing before the arbitrator. The lower court, therefore, has rightly held that the appellant has failed to point out any ground as contained in Section 34(2) of the said Act and, therefore, his application was liable to be dismissed. There being no illegality or perversity in the said order passed by the lower court, the present appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. ;