Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajendra Kumar Bothra, filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 11th March 2010, which dismissed his petition under Section 34 of the Act and upheld an arbitral award dated 2nd September 2008. The appellant had claimed a sum of Rs.22,88,708/- from the respondent, M/s. Ventura Securities Limited, including Rs.15,88,708/- towards actual loss and Rs.7,00,000/- towards other losses, with interest at 15% per annum, arising from share trading transactions. The sole arbitrator rejected the claim, finding that the appellant failed to establish any negligence or breach of contract on the part of the respondent. The learned Single Judge, in the Section 34 petition, found no ground to interfere with the award as it was not contrary to public policy or patently illegal. In the appeal, the Division Bench heard senior counsel for both parties and perused the record. The court noted that the scope of interference under Section 37 is even narrower than under Section 34, and the appellant could not demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the award. The court held that the findings of fact by the arbitrator are final and binding, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Appeal under Section 37 - Scope of Interference - Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court considered the limited scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 and the even narrower scope in an appeal under Section 37. Held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view unless the award is perverse or contrary to public policy (Paras 1-3). B) Arbitration - Arbitral Award - Claim for Losses - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The appellant claimed Rs.22,88,708/- from the respondent for losses in share trading. The sole arbitrator rejected the claim, and the Single Judge upheld the award. Held that the appellant failed to prove any negligence or breach of contract by the respondent, and the findings of fact by the arbitrator are binding (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and upholding the arbitral award which rejected the appellant's claim for losses in share trading.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11th March 2010 and the arbitral award dated 2nd September 2008 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Scope of interference with arbitral award
- Public policy
- Error of law on face of award
