IMPORTANT POINT
The limited grounds for interference with an award under Sec. 37 and the supervisory nature of jurisdiction under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J. - This appeal is filed by the respondent in the Arbitration who is also the unsuccessful petitioner to a challenge under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') before the Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam.

2. The appellant is the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL). It awarded a handling contract of its Mumbai Branch to the 1st respondent on 22/4/2006 for a period of seven years, which ended on 21/4/2013. Since the new tender for work after 2013 was not finalized in time, there were correspondence between the appellant and the 1st respondent leading to an extension of contract. This also led to a dispute which was referred to a three member arbitration panel, which ultimately gave its award dtd. 16/7/2017 in favour of the respondent herein (Contractor). An application under Sec. 34 of the Act was filed before the Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam against the award, which was dismissed. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. This Court has heard Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Kotireddy Idamakanti appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant rests his arguments on the fact that the Court failed to see that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to decide in terms of the contract and also gave an award without there being adequate or clear evidence.

5. Relying upon the grounds urged before the Tribunal, the learned senior counsel pointed out that ground No.5 urged in the lower Court is the most critical issue namely, whether the 1st respondent before the Court and claimant before the Tribunal was entitled to claim rates for the new contract for the period of extension. It was also pointed out that relying upon ground No.7 that the issuance of extension letters and acceptance thereof were not looked into by the Tribunal. With regard to the issue of undue influence and fraud, it is pointed out that there was no undue influence and that the same was neither pleaded nor proved with certainty and that the contractor even while giving the no claim certificate made it clear that except the amount mentioned therein it had no further claims. It is also pointed out that the letters were executed/sent over a period of time by the respondent which was an experienced business house and that neither fraud, undue influence or coercion are borne out by the record. He relies upon a compendium of case law which is filed and the following cases are relied upon:

(1) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited, 2012 (194) DLT 661. (2) Bharti Cellular Ltd., v. Union of India and others, 2010 (10) SCC 174. (3) City Montessori School v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2009 (14) SCC 253. (4) R.N.Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, 1992 (4) SCC 683. (5) M/s. New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. and others v. State of Bihar and others, (1981) 1 SCC 537.

(6) M/s. Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 311. (7) Associated Engineering and Co., v. Government of A.P. and another, (1991) 4 SCC 93. (8) RINL v. M/s. Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and others, (2022) 1 ALT 741. (9) PSA SICAL Terminals Pvt. Ltd., v. The Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin, AIR 2021 SC 466.

6. It is also argued that the award based upon no evidence; an award ignoring vital evidence or an award contrary to the contract terms can be set aside by the Court. He points out that even under sec. 37 of the Act, these grounds are available. Relying upon Sec. 28 of the Act, learned senior counsel submits that the primary duty of the Arbitrator was to arbitrate in terms of the contract and as per law. Therefore, he submits that the award is vitiated and the grounds under Sec. 34 of the Act are squarely applicable. Lastly, he submits that even the primary Court committed an error in not going into these issues and deciding the same in accordance with law.

7. In reply to this, Sri