The court emphasized that a finding of fact properly recorded by the arbitrator is not open to challenge, but if the finding is patently illegal or perverse, the court in its supervisory jurisdiction is entitled to intervene.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Bhadang, J.

This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Act, for short), challenging the judgment and order dated 27.01.2009 passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Misc. Application No.251/2006. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has dismissed the petition, filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the said Act, challenging the award dated 23.08.2006 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal may be stated thus :

The respondent Anuradha Malgaonkar (claimant before the learned Arbitrator) had obtained LPG distributorship at Ponda, under the name and style as 'Ponda Gas Service' from the appellant-Corporation, vide agreement dated 21.05.1986. Disputes and differences arose between the parties as, according to the appellant, the respondent was not maintaining the shop registers, refill registers and customer service registers and was not keeping proper account of the LPG cylinders and pressure regulators and was also violating the safety regulations. According to the appellant, in an inspection conducted on 07.05.1992, 643 cylinders and 324 pressure regulators were found missing from the godown of the distributorship. The appellant in accordance with clause 29 of the said agreement, terminated the dealership which was the principal dispute between the parties.

3. By an order dated 15.07.2003, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Panjim in CMA No.246/1998/A filed by the respondent, the dispute came to be referred for arbitration of the sole arbitrator which arbitration was initially governed by the Arbitration Act 1940 (Old Act), inasmuch as the dealership agreement containing the arbitration clause was dated 21.05.1986 i.e. prior to the coming into force of the Act.

4. The respondent filed a statement of claim, inter alia, seeking a declaration that the termination of the distributorship agreement dated 21.05.1986 was wrongful and for restoration of the distributorship and for compensation, etc.

5. The appellant (the respondent before the Arbitrator) resisted the claim and also raised a counter claim in the sum of Rs.10,45,500/- (towards the cost of 643 cylinders and 324 pressure regulators) along with interest.

6. The appellant filed a reply to the counter claim and, inter alia, contended that the counter claim was not maintainable.

7. The parties produced documents and filed a joint application dated 14.04.2005, inter alia, agreeing for the dispute being adjudicated following the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties also agreed that the documents produced are the photo copies of the originals and unless any of the document is disputed and the inspection of the original is called for, the copies of the documents as produced will be considered as true copies of the original.

8. The learned Arbitrator by an Award dated 23.08.2006, dismissed the claim of the respondent, as well as the counter claim filed by the appellant. The learned Arbitrator refused to hold that the termination of the distributorship agreement was wrongful. He, therefore, refused the relief of restoration of distributorship and compensation as raised by the respondent. The counter claim filed by the appellant was also dismissed.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenged the same before the learned District Judge in an application under Section 34 of the Act. It may be mentioned that the respondent did not carry the matter any further, as to the dismissal of her claim. The learned District Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant . Hence this appeal.

10. I have heard Mr. S. D. Padiyar, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record.

11. Mr. Padiyar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has made the following submissions :

(i) That the finding recorded by t