The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the prohibition on re-appreciating evidence and challenging the merits of the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - The principal question that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the impugned award passed by the learned arbitrator is liable to be set aside on the ground that disputes arising out of nine contracts were consolidated and single statement of claim filed on behalf of the respondent (original claimant) was entertained and allowed in favour of the respondent. The petitioner claims that the learned arbitrator had no power to consolidate disputes arising out of the nine contracts and in the absence of such power to consolidate, particularly when the petitioner had not consented for such consolidation, the impugned award is vitiated, being opposed to the fundamental policy of Indian Law and therefore, liable to be set aside.

2. The facts in brief leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner had entered into nine contracts for purchasing cotton bales from the respondent, which is a Government of India undertaking engaged in the business of sale and purchase of cotton as per the policies and directions of Government of India. In the present case, nine contracts executed between the parties pertained to supply of cotton bales from three branches of the respondent - Corporation at Sirsa, Sriganganagar and Bhilwara. The nine contracts pertained to the period between 24/1/2011 to 29/3/2011.

3. It was the case of the respondent - Corporation before the learned arbitrator that the petitioner was supposed to purchase 26449 cotton bales in terms of the contract. But, it lifted only 1300 cotton bales and failed to lift the remaining 25149 cotton bales, thereby committing breach of the contracts executed between the parties. The respondent - Corporation claimed that the petitioner had failed to make payments and did not lift the contracted cotton bales, giving rise to cause of action for the respondent to proceed against the petitioner.

4. Each of the nine contracts contained an arbitration clause, which specified that in case of disputes arising between the parties, the same would be referred to an arbitrator, other than an employee of the respondent-Corporation, to be appointed by the Director (Marketing) or a Director (Finance) of the respondent-Corporation.

5. In the light of the allegations of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner had committed breach of the aforesaid contracts, the parties exchanged communications and after issuing notice to the petitioner invoking arbitration, the Director of the respondent-Corporation, on 9/12/2011, appointed a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator for resolution of disputes between the parties. Since the appointment of the arbitrator and initiation of arbitral proceedings was prior to coming into force of the amendments of the year 2015 in the said Act, the aspect of unilateral appointment of the arbitrator is not relevant for the present case.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent filed a single claim pertaining to the disputes that arose from all the nine contracts executed between the parties. The respondent claims that the terms of the contract, the format thereto and the mutual obligations recorded therein were identical in all the nine contracts. It is submitted that only facts and figures pertaining to each contract differed, but otherwise there was no distinction between the nine contracts.

7. The petitioner filed its written statement / statement of defence before the learned arbitrator. Apart from contesting the claims made by the respondent on merits, the petitioner did raise an objection to consolidation of claims raised under the nine contracts. As a consequence of the said objection raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned arbitrator framed a specific issue concerning the same. It is relevant that the petitioner filed its counter claim and the same was also a single counter claim in respect of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in respect of all the nine contracts. The lea