JUDGMENT :

R.F. Nariman, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length.

3. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, painstakingly took us through the records, including the Award, in order to point out various deficiencies which, according to him, fell within the parameters of a Section 34 petition as a result of which we should not therefore disturb the judgment of the High Court, which has merely remanded the matter and directed that the matter be disposed of in six months.

4. This matter has a chequered history. The Award that was made by the learned Arbitrator was on 16.09.2009. Five claims were made before him amounting in all to Rs. 2,08,59,989. However, ultimately the Award that was made in favour of the appellant herein was to the extent of Rs. 1,38,44,430 plus 15% on a sum of Rs. 1,17,77,080 as pendente lite interest plus Rs. 2,67,350 by way of costs without interest. If the said amount, dehors costs, was not paid in four months, the interest figure would become higher and would attract 18%.

5. When the Award was put into execution, the Executing Court pointed out that by the date of its order dated 11.02.2010, the 120 day period – beyond which no Award can be challenged – was already over and therefore proceeded with the execution. It was only when an order of 17.02.2010 was made directing the RBI to disburse the awarded amount after attaching the Government’s Bank Account, and the reply of the RBI dated 20.02.2010 stating that adequate funds were not in such account, that the matter was then remitted by the High Court by an order dated 24.02.2010 stating that the Government was willing to deposit, at that point of time, 50% of the decretal dues in two weeks. At this stage, therefore, the High Court set aside the Executing Court’s order dated 17.02.2010. It is only after these proceedings that the respondent woke up and filed a Section 34 petition challenging the Award on 02.04.2010.

6. In the first round of litigation, the Section 34 petition was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 22.03.2012, stating that the period of 120 days was over, and hence no foray into the merits would be permissible at this stage. However, by an order dated 11.01.2013, the Division Bench set aside this judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.

7. The learned District Judge, in the second round, by an order dated 22.12.2016, heard learned counsel for both parties and found as follows:-

“A court must not substitute its interpretation as against the views and interpretation of the arbitrator, the finding of the arbitrator requires to be accepted without demur because court has no power or jurisdiction to sit over the finding of fact arrived at by the arbitrators. In the instant case, so far I could realize from the argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the petitioner and also from the petition under Sec. 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act and the photo copy of documents placed before the court that the petitioner challenges the finding of facts but nothing is oozing out from record that the impugned award is perverse either on account of interpretation of law or any other collateral aspect and consequent decision taken by the Arbitrator. The ground upon which the award is challenged is an entirely factual issue; in no way covered by any ground as enumerated in Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. We cannot forget that since the arbitrator is a judge appointed by the parties, the parties are bound by his decision. His decision is final unless the reasons given by him in arriving at his decision are totally perverse or award is based on wrong proposition of law. In this case the dispute arises out of work contract, its execution and payment, i.e. Amount of claim, that aspect totally comes within the jurisdiction of arbitrator that very finding cannot be interfered in a proceeding under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac