Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1996) against the judgment dated 21.02.2013 passed by District Judge, Baran in civil misc. case No. 55/2011 titled as State of Rajasthan v. M/s. V. Construction Kota by which the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 were dismissed by that court.
(2.) IT has been argued by the appellant that the Learned District Judge, Baran has rejected his objections without giving any reasons. It has also been argued by the appellant that the lower court/arbitrator has arbitrarily ignored the statements of witnesses Gopal Lal Mathur and Mukesh Meena. It has also been argued that the lower court/arbitrator has arbitrarily relied upon the statement of a handwriting expert who was not even registered for this purpose. It was also argued by the appellant that the lower court/arbitrator has arbitrarily mis -interpreted the clause 32 of the agreement and it has wrongly held that at the time of withdrawing of work, the concerned Executive Engineer was having budget of Rs. 52.59 Lakhs and the jurisdiction of the work was also with the concerned Executive Engineer who granted the work order in favour of the claimant. It was further argued that the arbitrator has wrongly awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakhs under Section 74 of the Contract Act which was not applicable in the case of claimants. On the other hand, respondent has argued that award could have been challenged before the Court only on the basis of the grounds mentioned in Section 34 of the Act of 1996 which nowhere exist in the present matter.
(3.) HERE following important rulings deserve to be mentioned: - - "(1) MCEDRMOTT International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. : (2006) 11 SCC 161. In this case it was held by the Apex Court that the Act of 1996 makes provisions for the supervisory role of courts and for that review of arbitral award will be permitted only to ensure fairness. The supervisory role and the minimum level of interference is envisaged only in cases of fraud or bias, violation of natural justice etc. Violation of public policy should be so unfair and unreasonable as to shock the conscience of the court. The arbitral award can be set aside if it is contrary to (a) fundamental policy of Indian law; (b) the interest of India; (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal or arbitrary. (2) State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Construction Company, : (2010) 2 SCC 182. In this case, it was held by the Apex Court that while interpreting the provisions of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 if it is found that the Arbitrator acted beyond/ignored the terms of the contract even then jurisdiction of the court under Section 30 will not be appellate jurisdiction and so the court cannot reappreciate the evidence or examine the correctness of conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator. It was further held that the award passed by the arbitrator cannot be set aside on the ground that it was erroneous. Interference with the award merely on the ground of possibility of another view was also held not permissible. (3) Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Company v. Union of India, : (2010) 1 SCC 409. In this case, it was held by the Apex Court that if the arbitrator has recorded its finding giving elaborate reasons then such finding cannot be called perverse or based on no evidence. (4) Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Progressive Writers and Publishers, : (2009) 5 SCC 678. In this case, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Courts do not exercise appellate jurisdiction and cannot reappraise the evidence. (5) BOC India Ltd. v. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd., : (2007) 9 SCC 503. This was also a case of Arbitration Act, 1940 and it was held by the Apex Court that when Arbitrator had taken a plausible view on interpretation of the contract, the court cannot set aside award on the ground of misconduct of arbitral proceedings. (6) Kwality Manufacturing Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corporation, : (2009) 5 SCC 142. In this case also, it was held that under Section 30 of Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court while considering challenge to award does not sit in appeal over the finding and decision of the arbitrator. The court cannot reassess or re -appreciate evidence or examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence. The award of arbitrator is final and the same can be challenged or set aside only on the grounds mentioned under Section 30 and Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.";