Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh V. Choudhary, filed Arbitration Petition No.734 of 2010 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside an arbitral award dated 7.1.2010 passed by retired Justice S.M. Jhunjhunwala. The dispute arose from a suit filed by the petitioner in 1999 (Suit No.1163 of 1999) against the respondents, Kshitij Rajiv Torka and Rajiv Rambhagat Torka, and one Dr. S.K. Poddar, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The suit was referred to arbitration by consent of parties. The arbitrator dismissed the claim for specific performance, holding that the petitioner was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that the suit was barred by limitation. The petitioner challenged the award on grounds under Section 34(2)(a)(ii) (excess of authority), 34(2)(a)(iii) (violation of natural justice), 34(2)(b)(i) (conflict with public policy), and 34(2)(b)(ii) (patent illegality). The court examined the arbitrator's findings and concluded that the award did not suffer from any infirmity. The court noted that the arbitrator had considered the evidence and given cogent reasons for his conclusions. The court held that the grounds for setting aside an award under Section 34 are narrow and the court cannot reappreciate evidence. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Setting Aside Award - Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Grounds of Challenge - Petitioner sought to set aside award under Sections 34(2)(a)(ii), 34(2)(a)(iii), 34(2)(b)(i) and 34(2)(b)(ii) - Court examined whether award was in conflict with public policy or patently illegal - Held that the award did not suffer from any infirmity and was not liable to be set aside (Paras 1-52). B) Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Readiness and Willingness - Petitioner claimed specific performance of agreement to sell immovable property - Arbitrator found petitioner not ready and willing to perform his part - Court upheld finding as based on evidence - Held that the arbitrator's conclusion was plausible and not perverse (Paras 10-30). C) Limitation - Filing of Suit - Petitioner filed suit in 1999 for specific performance of agreement dated 1995 - Arbitrator held suit was within limitation - Court did not interfere with finding of fact - Held that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and arbitrator's decision was final (Paras 15-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arbitral award dated 7.1.2010 is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(ii), 34(2)(a)(iii), 34(2)(b)(i) and 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the arbitration petition with no order as to costs, upholding the arbitral award.
Law Points
- Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- public policy
- patent illegality
- arbitral award
- specific performance
- agreement to sell
- limitation
- readiness and willingness
