Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original claimant Inacio Amorim V. D'Costa, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 29th July 2013 passed by the District Judge, Goa, dismissing their petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose out of an agreement to sell dated 15th July 1999 executed between the original claimant and respondent no.1, Rocky Andrade, for sale of a property in Goa. The claimant alleged that the respondent failed to perform his part of the contract, while the respondent contended that the agreement was not intended to be acted upon and that the claimant was not ready and willing to perform. The matter was referred to arbitration, and the arbitrator, after considering evidence, dismissed the claim for specific performance. The petitioners challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 before the District Judge, who upheld the award. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 227. The High Court examined the scope of interference under Section 34 and Article 227, noting that the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court held that the District Judge had correctly applied the law and that no grounds for interference were made out. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Challenge to Arbitral Award - Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Scope of Interference - The court held that the scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to grounds of patent illegality, perversity, or conflict with public policy. The court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view. (Paras 5-7) B) Arbitration - Findings of Fact - Perversity - Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that findings of fact recorded by the arbitrator, if based on some evidence, are not perverse and cannot be interfered with under Section 34. The District Judge correctly declined to interfere. (Paras 8-10) C) Arbitration - Agreement to Sell - Specific Performance - Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The arbitrator's finding that the agreement to sell was not proved and that the respondent was not ready and willing to perform his part was based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order of the District Judge dismissing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, suffers from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the District Judge had correctly applied the law and that no grounds for interference were made out. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Arbitration Act
- 1996
- Section 34
- Section 37
- interference with arbitral award
- perversity
- public policy
- findings of fact
- reappreciation of evidence
