The scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is very limited, and the Court has no power to re-appreciate the evidence and to interfere with findings of facts unless the same are found perverse under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said “Arbitration Act”), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 8th June, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:

2. The petitioner was the original respondent, whereas the respondent was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings.

3. The respondent herein is carrying on business of supply of material such as pipes, pipe fittings, flanges etc. to the developers, builders and contractors. The petitioner is carrying on business of infrastructure and real estate development of residential and commercial properties, tourist complexes and hotels.

4. During the period between November, 2006 to October, 2008, the respondent supplied various kinds of material such as pipes, pipe fittings, flanges, valves etc. to the petitioner. It was the case of the respondent that the first order for supply of material was placed by the petitioner on or around 18th November, 2006 and until about the end of February, 2008. The petitioner used to confirm the quotations of the respondent by issuing purchase orders which were most of time authorized by Mr.Amir Nensey, who is the Director of the petitioner. Initially the material was purchased either by the petitioner making advance payment or on making 50% payment at the time of issuing purchase order and the balance 50% post delivery of the material.

5. It is the case of the respondent that since the respondent became a regular supplier of the petitioner, the petitioner used to place orders some time on the respondent from March, 2008 onwards on the basis of verbal acceptance by the petitioner of the quotation of the respondent and at times the said Mr.Amir Nensey, who is the Director of the petitioner, used to initial the quotation / invoice in confirmation thereof. The payments were made by the petitioner on post delivery of the material and if no purchase orders had been issued, such payments were reflected in the ledger account of the petitioner with reference to the bill number.

6. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner went on placing verbal orders in July, 2008 by following the same procedure i.e. confirmation of such orders being placed and executed and thereafter would initial the tax invoices. The present dispute was in respect of the goods supplied by the respondent to the petitioner between July, 2008 and September, 2008 under 8 invoices, which are marked as Exhibits C-11 collectively to C-18 collectively by the learned arbitrator. The amount covered by these 8 invoices was at Rs.61,36,187/- after giving credit of Rs.1.00 lacs paid by the petitioner to the respondent on 1st September, 2008.

7. It was the case of the respondent that during the period between April, 2008 to October, 2008, the petitioner took delivery of the material in value aggregating to Rs.1,49,88,072/- of which the petitioner only paid a sum of Rs.88,51,885/- to the respondent and did not pay the balance sum of Rs.61,36,187/-.

8. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner failed and neglected to pay the said balance amount though repeatedly called upon by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner issued a statement of account dated 6th January, 2009, acknowledging the balance outstanding payment of Rs.61,36,187/-, which was due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent.

9. The respondent vide letters dated 16th October, 2008, 16th December, 2008, 5th January, 2009, 7th January, 2009, 23rd January, 2009, 3rd March, 2009, 23rd March, 2009, 31st March, 2009, 20th April, 2009 and 2nd June, 2009 called upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount without any undue delay. The petitioner however, did not give any response to any of such letters.

10. The respondent by her advocate's notice dated