IMPORTANT POINT
The limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the A&C Act do not entail a challenge on the merits of the award. The court's jurisdiction under Section 34 is not in the nature of an appellate or revisional remedy.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 37(1)(c) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[A&C Act] assailing the impugned order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-07, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi[ADJ] in Arbitration Case No. 153/2018, whereby, the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act moved by the appellant challenging the arbitral award dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator was dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Briefly stated, the claimant, i.e., the respondent before this Court, is stated to be a partnership concern and engaged in the business of lighting consultants, manufacturers and suppliers. Pursuant to an oral agreement between the parties, parties entered into a written agreement dated 25.02.2012. Subsequently, the appellant was supplied with various consignments of goods during the period from 2012 to 2016 by the claimant/respondent vide various invoices/bills from time to time and the parties maintained a running account and payments were made from time to time during the ordinary course of business. A dispute arose when the claimant/respondent found that the appellant was in arrears to the tune of Rs. 76,58,717/- as per the running account and since the appellant failed to pay the said amount to the claimant/respondent, despite repeated requests and demands, it became liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum, which was assessed to Rs. 44,80,315/- for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2016 and ultimately a claim for total amount of Rs. 1,21,39,070/- was lodged including interest. Evidently, the dispute was covered by paragraph (10) of the terms and conditions mentioned in various supply orders collectively marked Ex.CW-1/4 in the arbitration proceedings and placed on the record by the appellant, providing as follows:

"It is mentioned that in the event of any dispute or differences between the parties arising howsoever from this context, the same shall, unless amicably settled, be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by M/s. Aman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. for final settlement. It is also agreed that the arbitration proceedings shall be held at New Delhi and shall be binding on both the parties. " (bold emphasis supplied)

3. When the disputes could not be resolved amicably, the claimant/respondent invoked the arbitration clause and filed an application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(2) of the A&C Act before this Court. By virtue of order dated 23.06.2016, Mr. B.S. Chumbak, District Judge (Retired) was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator, who entered upon the reference and after lodging of the statement of claim and relevant documents by claimant/respondent and upon filing replies/written defence by the appellant as well relevant documents, learned Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 07.01.2017 framed the following issues:

"I. Whether the claim of the claimant is barred by limitation? OPP

II. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 76,58,716/- as claimed as per the Statement of Account annexure-A-3 and the bills annexure-A-2? OPP

III. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the interest as claimed. If so, at what rate and for what period?

IV. Whether the Claimant supplied the total number/quality of the goods according to the specification as mentioned in the various purchase orders annexure A-1? Onus on both the parties.

V. Whether the Claimant supplied the defective goods as mentioned in the written statement? OPR

VI. Relief. "

4. During the course of arbitral proceedings, Mr. Sanjay Rohtagi, Authorized Representative for the claimant/respondent was examined besides Sh. Akhil Kumar as CW-2, who deposed in terms of his affidavit Ex.CW-2/A and both the witnesses were duly cross-examined. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Amit Gahlot was examined as RW-1 and he was duly cross-examined by the l