JUDGMENT :

[Saurabh Banerjee, J.]

1. Appellant (Municipal Corporation of Delhi), the original respondent, [Hereinafter referred to as “MCD”] before the learned Sole Arbitrator, through this appeal under Section 37 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [Hereinafter referred as “Act"] seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 31.08.2022 whereby in a petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by it, the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, [Hereinafter referred to as “learned Trial Court”] has upheld the Arbitral Award dated 27.11.2020 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in favour of the respondent, the original claimant, [Hereinafter referred as “allottee”] before the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. This Court, after hearing detailed arguments addressed by the learned Standing Counsel for MCD at length, prior to issuing notice and without entering into the merits of the disputes involved in the present petition, is of the opinion that in view of the settled position of law regarding the interpretation and limited scope of interference by the appellate Court under Section 37 of the Act, especially in view that the MCD is, once again, seeking to reagitate the very same contentions which have already been refuted after due consideration by two forums being the learned Sole Arbitrator and the learned Trial Court below, by two detailed/speaking orders separately, the petition in the present form is not maintainable under Section 37 of the Act.

3. It is thus that this Court, hereinbelow, is elucidating only the broad and essential facts involved in the present dispute, without going into any specific details with respect to time or date or event, more so, as the same are irrelevant for the purposes of the adjudication of the present appeal in terms of what follows hereunder.

4. Record of the present appeal reveals that pursuant to invitation of sealed tenders for allotment of parking site, the allottee was allotted car/scooter parking site at Jwala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, [Hereinafter referred as “parking site”] for a period of five years. As such, though the possession of the said parking site was claimed to be handed over to him on a particular date, however, physical possession thereof was actually handed over to him subsequently. As the allottee faced non-cooperation in operating the said parking site from various entities and as he was handed over only a part thereof instead of what was allotted to him, the allottee faced difficulties. Moreover, despite the allottee repeatedly taking up his cause with the MCD and the local Police, from time to time, MCD served Demand Notice(s) and issued Show Cause Notice(s) upon him for payment of outstanding dues for different periods.

5. Because a sizable chunk of the parking site originally allotted to the allottee could not be made operational as some portions thereof were deleted by the Traffic Police and as no amount was owing on his behalf, he initiated arbitral proceedings against MCD before the learned Sole Arbitrator claiming refund of the excess amount of Rs.47,08,815/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. along with a declaration to the effect that he was not liable to pay any amount to MCD towards alleged licence fee and cost of arbitration. Interestingly, as MCD failed to file its Statement of Defence thereto despite due service, its right to file the same stood waived by the learned Sole Arbitrator. Mysteriously, though MCD was duly represented by its counsel, no challenge was made to it. Additionally, as there was no response from MCD and no admission/denial of documents filed by allottee were carried out, it resulted in the non-framing of issues, however, despite the aforesaid flaws by the MCD, the allottee led its evidence and produced his witness, who, needless to say, was duly cross-examined for long durations repeatedly by learned counsel for MCD.

6. It was thence that the learned Sole Arbitrator, after holding that