Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a dispute between M/s. Trimurti Exports (appellant) and M/s. Modelama Exports Limited (respondent) concerning a mining concession. The respondent claimed amounts due under an agreement for supply of iron and manganese ore. The arbitrator passed an award on 18/04/2013 in favor of the respondent. The appellants challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, who dismissed the application on 24/09/2014. The appellants then appealed under Section 37 of the Act. The High Court held that the scope of interference under Section 34 is limited and that the arbitrator's findings on factual issues and interpretation of the contract were not perverse or contrary to public policy. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the award.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appeal under Section 37 - Scope of Interference - Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court considered the scope of interference in an appeal against an order dismissing a petition under Section 34 of the Act. Held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless the award is perverse or contrary to public policy (Paras 2-4).
B) Arbitration Law - Section 34 - Public Policy - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court examined whether the arbitral award was in conflict with public policy. Held that an award is not against public policy merely because a different view is possible; it must be shown to be patently illegal or perverse (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and order dated 24/09/2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, dismissing the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confirming the award dated 18/04/2013, is liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 24/09/2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, dismissing the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confirming the award dated 18/04/2013, is upheld.
Law Points
- Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Scope of interference with arbitral award
- Public policy
- Perversity
- Interpretation of contract
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 110
Appeal Under Arbitration Act No.1 of 2015
Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with D. Shirodkar and Ms. Gautami Kakodkar, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Raja Wadhwa and Mr. A. Batheja, Advocates for the respondent.
M/s. Trimurti Exports & Ors.
M/s. Modelama Exports Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against dismissal of application under Section 34 of the Act.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of the judgment and order dated 24/09/2014 dismissing the application under Section 34 and confirming the arbitral award.
Filing Reason
Challenge to the arbitral award dated 18/04/2013 passed in favor of the respondent.
Previous Decisions
The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Panaji dismissed the application under Section 34 on 24/09/2014.
Issues
Whether the judgment and order dated 24/09/2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, dismissing the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confirming the award dated 18/04/2013, is liable to be set aside.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the award was against public policy and perverse.
Respondent supported the award and the judgment under appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited. The court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless the award is perverse or contrary to public policy. The arbitrator's findings on factual issues and interpretation of the contract were not perverse or contrary to public policy.
Judgment Excerpts
By this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for short), the appellants (original respondents before the Arbitrator) are challenging the judgment and order dated 24/09/2014 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, by which, the application under Section 34 of the Act, filed by the appellants, has been dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Arbitrator on 18/04/2013.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a claim before the arbitrator. The arbitrator passed an award on 18/04/2013 in favor of the respondent. The appellants filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, which was dismissed on 24/09/2014. The appellants then filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34, Section 37
