The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, highlighting the importance of abiding by arbitral awards and the need for commercial parties to honor the spirit of arbitration.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - This appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, impugns the judgment dated 5th December, 2020 of the Commercial Court - 02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi of dismissal of OMP (COMM) 60/2019 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, preferred by the appellant with respect to the arbitral award dated 17th December, 2018, of payment of Rs. 24,75,000/- with interest, by the appellant to the respondent.

2. The appeal came up before a Single Judge of this Court on 16th December, 2020, but after several adjournments, was ordered to be placed before the Commercial Appellate Division Bench, which alone under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is authorised to hear the appeal. The appeal accordingly came up before a Bench comprising of one of us (Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.) sitting with Justice Sanjeev Narula, on 1st February, 2021 when, though notice of the appeal had not been issued till then, but the counsel for the respondent appeared on advance notice.

3. On 1st February, 2021, on enquiry, whether the appellant had deposited the arbitral award amount, this Court was informed that only 25% of the amount had been deposited. While listing the appeal for today for hearing on admission, the appellant was directed to deposit the entire arbitral amount awarded, in the Execution Court, and we are today informed that the entire arbitral award amount has been deposited in the Execution Court. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice.

4. The parties entered into an agreement dated 22nd March, 2016, whereunder the respondent agreed to provide advisory services to the appellant for preparation and sanction of a financing package. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, (i) the appellant agreed to pay nonrefundable engagement fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent and which was adjustable against the fee payable at the final milestone; (ii) the appellant further agreed to pay 0.75% of the quantum of working capital facility arranged by the respondent for the appellant, with 25% of the fee amount being payable on receipt of sanction letters and the remaining 75% being payable at the time of first disbursement of the working capital; (iii) if due to any reasons the appellant decided not to proceed with the sanctions or does not involve the respondent in the completion of balance activities , the respondent was nevertheless entitled for the entire success fee; (iv) the clause in the agreement regarding payment of professional fee was to remain valid for a period of four months from the date of signing of the agreement and during which time the respondent was to act as exclusive financial advisor to the appellant; (v) the appellant agreed not to approach directly or indirectly the investors/institutions/bankers or any other parties introduced to it by the respondent, from the date of acceptance of such contract and until a period of 12 months after the expiry of the contract; (vi) the professional fee/expenses were to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 7 days of respondent raising an invoice; (vii) if at any stage the appellant decided not to go ahead with the project/transaction or defer or abandon the project/transaction, the amount due to the respondent up to that stage was agreed to be paid; and, (viii) in case of early termination, respondent was to remain entitled to receive payment from the appellant for the services performed up to the date of such termination.

5. Besides the aforesaid commercial clauses, the parties also agreed as under:-

"All disputes or differences between the parties arising out of or in connection with execution of the assignment shall be attempted to be settled through mutual negotiation. In the event of such differences or disputes are not settled through mutual negotiations, the differences/disputes shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitration shall be con