The court emphasized the importance of considering relevant evidence and court orders in arbitration proceedings and held that a decision based on irrelevant or unproven evidence can be considered perverse and patently illegal.

JUDGMENT

Krishna Rao, J. - This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator dt. 29th September, 2014.

2. The petitioner was awarded with the contract of leasing Rear SLR 4 Tons space in train no. 3185Up Ganga Sagar Express, Sealdah to Jaynagar for a period of 18th January, 2010 to 17th January, 2013 and accordingly on 15th January, 2010, an agreement was entered between the parties.

3. Clause 25.1 of the agreement provides for extension of lease contract which reads as follows:

'25.1. 'Extension of lease is permissible only in case of long term lease of three years wherein then same can be extended only once, by 2 (two) more years at a lease rate of 25% more than lump sum leased freight subject to satisfactory performance by the leaseholder, without any penalty for overloading or violation of any provision of the contract.'

4. On 19th September, 2012 the petitioner had applied for further two (2) years extension for the continuation of the lease of 3185 Up Rear SLR.

5. Though, the petitioner had applied for extension of lease period but the respondents have not taken any decision either extension or rejection, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Ld. Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Kolkata being Miscellaneous Case No. 49 of 2013. On 11th April, 2013, the Ld. Chief Judge, City Civil Court had disposed of the said application by passing the following order :

'That the Miscellaneous Case (under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) is allowed on contest against the respondents but without any cost.

Parties to the proceeding are directed to refer the matter to the arbitrator as per agreement dated 15.1.2010 but till the disposal of the matter by the arbitrator and to protect the interest of the parties, the respondents are restrained by an order of injunction from creating any third party interest over the leasing rights of R-SLR-4 ton space in Train No.3185, Gangasagar Express, Sealdah to Jaynagar on payment of 25 % more lease rate than the lump sum leased freight charge now the petitioner is praying subject to the satisfactory performance of the railway authorities till final disposal of the arbitration proceeding. Each of the party shall refer the matter to the arbitrator within three months from this day failing which this order stands vacated.

Petitioner also files an application supported by an affidavit praying for extension of the ad interim order of injunction on the ground stated therein. In view of disposal of the original Misc. case, the prayer for extension is infructuous and rejected.'

6. On 19th August, 2013, the respondents have appointed an Arbitrator and accordingly the Arbitrator had started arbitration proceeding between the parties. During the pendency of the arbitration proceeding and inspite of the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, the respondents have issued a letter on 1st July, 2014 directing the petitioner to stop loading and uploading at Sealdah station in train no. 3185 Up Gangasagar Express.

7. Being aggrieved an dissatisfied with the said letter, the petitioner had again preferred an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Kolkata being Misc Case No. 2564 of 2014 and on 10th July, 2014, the Ld. Court had passed the following order :

'In view of the above, issue notice calling upon the opposite parties to show cause within 15 days from the receipt of the same as to why the petitioner's prayer for temporary injunction shall not be allowed.

Meanwhile, considering the prima facie case of the petitioner, balance of convenience and inconvenience and urgency of the situation, the Opposite parties are hereby directed not to give any effect to the letter dated 01.07.2014 issued by O.P.No.4, and to allow the petitioner in their loa