An arbitrator's decision can only be challenged under limited grounds; violations must be significant to justify setting aside the award.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.(Oral)

I.A. 12631/2019 (for delay)

This is an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of 54 days delay in re-filing the objections.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 54 days in re-filing the objections is allowed. The application is disposed of.

O.M.P. (COMM) 372/2019

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for setting aside the impugned Award dated April 22, 2019 passed by the learned Arbitrator.

2. The petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that it is wholly unsustainable, patently illegal, contrary to the terms of the Contract Agreement, contrary to the public policy of India, as well as against the substantive law of the land as envisaged in Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996").

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner on February 04, 2015 issued a Contract No.G 753, to the respondent for the supply of CNC Universal Precision Internal Grinding Machine. The delivery period for the Machine was 180 days. The delivery period was extended up to January 09, 2016. The delivery period was further extended upto November 30, 2016, on the request of the respondent.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on September 03, 2016, the inspecting agency i.e. M/s RITES rejected the machine being sub-standard and making too much noise and missing other desired parameters.

5. That on November 28, 2016, the respondent requested the petitioner for further extension of the delivery period with the Inspection call just two days before the expiry of the Delivery period. On December 28, 2016, the petitioner permitted the "prove out" the accuracy of the machines' at manufacturer's works with already ground components.

6. That, on January 19, 2017, it was informed by the consignee that the machine is no more required. On March 24, 2017 the contract was cancelled without any financial repercussion on either side.

7. On termination, the respondent invoked the Arbitration clause in the Agreement and on October 25, 2017, Shri Kameshwar Chaudhary was appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

8. The arbitrator, on April 22, 2019, passed the award in favour of the respondent herein, for an amount of Rs.3,11,90,000/- with interest.

9. Dr. L.C. Singhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is not only perverse, contrary to contract; facts established on record but also suffers from legal misconduct, conflict with the basic notion of morality or justice and is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian Law.

10. He stated that the learned Arbitrator failed to take into consideration, the terms of the Agreement. In fact, the learned Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction by passing the Award beyond the terms of the contract.

11. He has stated that the learned Arbitrator has failed to consider that respondent had failed to supply the Machine (s) within the delivery period and further failed to supply the machine (s) after repeated extension of the delivery period.

12. He stated that the delivery period was further extended till November 30, 2016 and the petitioner had mentioned in the letter dated May 27, 2016