The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Arbitrator's conclusions to be based on evidence and not to ignore vital evidence, failing which the Award may be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') impugns the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM) No. 391/2022 on the ground that it has erred in not appreciating the issues raised in the aforesaid petition.

2. Mr. Arvind Nigam, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that though the impugned order has discussed the law, however, even without discussing any of the points of facts raised in the section 34 petition, it has come to the conclusion that Flowmore has failed to corroborate with evidence how the Arbitrator's finding regarding the breach of the Purchase Order (`PO') dated 02.03.2019 is contrary to the Public Policy of India. It goes on to hold as under:

"...62. In light of the facts, submissions and contentions in the pleadings, this Court find that the Petitioner has failed to corroborate with evidence how the Learned Arbitrator's finding regarding the breach of the Purchase Order is contrary to the Public Policy of India. Even if the submissions of the Petitioner qua patent illegality in the Impugned Arbitral Award is accepted, then also no ground has been made out to set aside the Award inasmuch as the threshold to interfere and set aside an Arbitral Award has not been met.

63. It is settled law that the ground of Patent illegality gives way to setting aside an Arbitral Award with a very minimal scope of intervention. A party cannot simply raise an objection on the ground of patent illegality if the Award is simply against them. Patent illegality requires a distinct transgression of law, the clear lack of which thereof makes the petition simply a pointless effort of objection towards an Award made by a competent Arbitral Tribunal.

64. The Court is unable to subscribe to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner has failed to show that the arbitral award has been passed by the Learned Arbitrator by misappreciating evidence. Further, the petitioner has not been able to prove that the impugned Arbitral Award is patently illegal, and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian Law, and hence is liable to be set aside.

65. The Court is of the view that on the application of the rule of contra proferentem, the Purchase Order was fittingly interpreted by the Learned Arbitrator, leaving no scope for the interference of this Court on the Award. The Learned Arbitrator rightfully found the Petitioner to be guilty of breach of contract, which resulted in the Respondent incurring losses, and hence validates the award of a sum of Rs, 8,15,05,674/- to the Respondent.

66. The Court disagrees with the Petitioner's submission that the Respondent had shown no proof of any loss caused to it and that the Respondent was attempting to make unjust gains from the Petitioner. The Learned Arbitrator has accurately considered the documents on record to conclude that the Respondent has indeed incurred loss due to the Petitioner's actions, and hence is liable to be compensated..."

3. He further submits that the scope for judicial review under sections 34 and 37 of the Act is rather narrow. In the latter, proceedings the scope is even lesser. However, not all, examination of the records or the reasons for or the manner of arriving at the decision/Award is excluded from judicial review. In support of his submission, he relies upon the dicta of the Supreme Court in Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2022)1 SCC 131, in particular, upon the following observations:

".....27. For a better understanding of the role ascribed to Courts in reviewing arbitral awards while considering applications filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment of this Court in Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI [Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019)15 SCC 131: (2020)2 SCC (Civ) 213] wherein R.F. Nariman, J. ha