Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, M/s. Ambika Construction Co., was the original claimant in an arbitration arising out of a construction contract for a Plant Quarantine Laboratory at Sewri, Mumbai. The work was to commence on 29 August 2002 and be completed by 28 February 2003, but due to delays attributed by the Petitioner to incomplete drawings and delayed payments by the Respondent (Union of India), the work was completed after extensions. Disputes arose, and an Arbitrator was appointed. The Petitioner filed a claim for 14 claims before the Arbitrator on 30 August 2006. The Respondent resisted and raised a counterclaim. No evidence was led by either party; the Arbitrator passed the award dated 29 September 2008 based on pleadings and documents, allowing part claims. The Petitioner challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, primarily on the ground that the Arbitrator wrongly recorded that certain claims were not pressed. The court held that this factual recording cannot be re-opened in a Section 34 petition, especially since the Petitioner did not seek correction under Section 33 of the Act. The court also noted that the other side contended that the same claims were not pressed. Consequently, the court found no grounds to interfere with the award and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Section 34 Petition - Scope of Judicial Review - The court cannot re-open factual findings recorded by the Arbitrator, especially when the party did not seek correction under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator recorded that the Claimants did not press certain claims; this cannot be challenged for the first time in a Section 34 petition. (Paras 5-6) B) Arbitration Law - Claims Not Pressed - Effect - If a party does not press certain claims before the Arbitrator, they cannot be revived in a Section 34 petition. The Arbitrator's award based on such recording is final and binding. (Para 5) C) Arbitration Law - Evidence - No Evidence Led - The Arbitrator passed the award based on pleadings and documents as no evidence was led by the parties. Such an award is not per se invalid under Section 34. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arbitral award dated 29 September 2008 is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that the Arbitrator wrongly recorded that certain claims were not pressed.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the Arbitration Petition No. 131 of 2009, holding that the factual recording by the Arbitrator that certain claims were not pressed cannot be re-opened in a Section 34 petition, especially when the Petitioner did not seek correction under Section 33 of the Act. No grounds for interference were made out.
Law Points
- Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- scope of judicial review
- factual findings of arbitrator not to be re-opened
- claims not pressed cannot be revived
- no evidence led by parties
- award based on pleadings and documents
