Case Note & Summary
The Union of India, represented by the Executive Engineer of the Central Public Works Department, filed an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the judgment and order dated 25 September 2020 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court) in COM.A.S. No.17/2016. The Commercial Court had dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which sought to set aside an arbitral award dated 1 February 2016 made by the Sole Arbitrator, Rajiv Kumar. The dispute arose from an agreement dated 22 August 2007 for the construction of an aircraft hanger and associated facilities at Belur Campus, Bengaluru. The arbitrator partially allowed the claims of the respondent contractor, M/s. Warsaw Engineers, awarding Rs.1,07,05,858/- with interest at 10% per annum. The appellant contended that the grounds raised in the Section 34 petition were not properly considered by the Commercial Court. However, the High Court, after hearing submissions, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the Commercial Court's decision. The court noted that the award was not perverse or contrary to public policy, and thus no interference was warranted under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appeal against dismissal of Section 34 petition - Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37(1)(c) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The appellant challenged the dismissal of its petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which sought to set aside an arbitral award. The court held that the grounds urged by the appellant were not considered in the judgment under appeal, but the court found no merit in the appeal as the award was not perverse or contrary to public policy. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of the Commercial Court dismissing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the Commercial Court in COM.A.S. No.17/2016 is upheld.
Law Points
- Scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996 is limited to grounds of public policy
- patent illegality
- or perversity
- Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Section 13(1A) provides for appeal against orders under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
