The court upheld the limited scope of review under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing procedural compliance and the relevance of prior participation in arbitration.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The above captioned first appeal [FAO(COMM) 97/2022] under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth referred to as the "Act") has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23.05.2022 [in OMP (COMM) No. 03/2021] passed by the learned District Judge, whereby the objections filed by appellant under Section 34 of the Act, against the arbitral award dated 19.02.2020 (henceforth referred to as the `arbitral award'), have been rejected.

2. The above captioned second appeal [FAO (OS) 99/2022] filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the appellant against the order dated 05.05.2022 [in OMP (COMM) No. 124/2020] passed by the learned District Judge, whereby the objections filed by appellant under Section 34 of the Act, against the arbitral award dated 19.02.2020, have been rejected.

3. We note that the first round of litigation inter-se the parties commenced when the respondent, as claimant filed two separate Statement of Claims before the learned arbitrator and came to an end whence the learned arbitrator allowed the claims of the respondent against the appellant vide two separate arbitral awards dated 19.02.2020.

4. We further note that the aforesaid led to the second round of litigation inter-se the parties, when the appellant raised its objections, being OMP (COMM) No. 3/2021 qua the first site and OMP (COMM) No. 124/2020 qua the second site, under Section 34 of the Act against the aforesaid arbitral awards before the learned trial court. The said second round of litigation culminated whence the learned trial court dismissed the said objections of the appellant vide two separate impugned orders dated 23.05.2022 and 05.05.2022. The aforesaid led to the filing of the third round of litigation inter-se the parties in the form of instant appeals under Section 37 of the Act filed by the appellant against the impugned orders of dismissal.

5. Pertinently, the arbitral award dated 19.02.2020 in the first appeal pertains to dispute with regard to "Unipole site Muni Maya Ram Hospital Chowk, Pitampura FTC Muni Maya Ram Hospital (Rohini Zone)" (henceforth referred to as "first site") and the second appeal pertains to arbitral award of even date with regard to dispute arising out of "Unipole site in front of DDA offices, Opp. Metro Pillar No.373 Near Madhjuban Chowk, FTC Rithala to Netaji Subhash Palace (RZ)" (henceforth referred to as the "second site").

6. Since the parties to these appeals as well as both the impugned orders contain similar reasoning and findings and as the grounds for challenge to both the impugned orders dated 23.05.2022 and 05.05.2022 are similar, therefore, these appeals are heard together. Also, the appellant has prayed for stay of both the impugned orders and the preliminary objection qua maintainability of both these appeals under Section 37 of the Act, is involved, therefore, prior to issuing notice, we deem it appropriate to take up and decide the issue of maintainability of both these appeals.

7. According to appellant, a tender was floated by the respondent for allotment of the first site and also for allotment of the second site for display of advertisement and the highest bid offered by the appellant was accepted. The respondent vide offer letter dated 23.12.2014 offered the appellant to display its advertisements at a monthly licensing fee of Rs.71,850/- in respect of first site and Rs.88,850/- in respect of second site, for a period t