Important Point:
a) Scope and ambit of challenge to the award declared by the learned Arbitral tribunal in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is very limited. Only when the award is in conflict with the public policy of India or any patent illegality is found, the award declared by the learned Arbitral tribunal can be set aside in exercise of powers either under Section 34 or Section 37 of the Arbitration Actb) Mere allegation of fraud simplicitor may not be a ground to nullify the effect of arbitration agreement between the parties. It is only in those cases where the Court, while dealing with Section 8 of the Act, finds that there are very serious allegations of fraud which make a virtual case of criminal offence or where allegations of fraud are so complicated that it becomes absolutely essential that such complex issues can be decided only by civil court on the appreciation of the voluminous evidence that needs to be produced, the Court can sidetrack the agreement by dismissing application under Section 8 and proceed with the suit on merits.

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Commercial Court, Vadodara dated 15/10/2016 in Commercial Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 108/2016 by which the learned Judge has rejected the said application submitted by the appellants herein, original opponents before the learned Arbitral tribunal, submitted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act"), appellants herein - original applicants before the learned Commercial Court has preferred the present First Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

2. The facts leading to the present First Appeal in nutshell are as under;

[2.1] One Mrs. Ritu @ Nirmala Advani and the present respondent herein were the partners of M/s. Hariom Marketing Firm having equal share i.e. 50:50 in the said firm. Thereafter, the husband of Mrs. Ritu @ Nirmala Advani was inducted as partner in the said firm and new partnership deed was executed wherein Mr. Mahesh Advani was taken as partner in M/s. Hariom Marketing Firm with effect from 01/04/2005 and the profit and loss sharing was agreed at the rate that the respondent shall get 50% and Mrs. Ritu and Mr. Mahesh Advani shall get 25% each. According to the respondent herein Mr. Mahesh Advani was handling all the financial matters of M/s. Hariom Marketing firm and for easy operation and management, said Mr. Mahesh Advani had taken signatures of the respondent on various blank cheques of the partnership firm. It was the case on behalf of the respondent herein that both Mr. Mahesh Advani and Mrs. Ritu Advani - appellants herein siphoned huge funds from the said partnership firm and diverted the funds of the partnership business for personal purpose, and therefore, they have committed breach of trust with the respondent herein. Therefore, the respondent herein decided to retire from M/s. Hariom Marketing with effect from 01/04/2010 and the appellants herein - Mr. Mahesh Advani and Mrs. Ritu Advani continued as partners of the said firm. It was the case on behalf of the respondent herein that at the time of retirement, the respondent herein was given the balance sheet of M/s. Hariom Marketing as on 31/03/2010 and on going through the said balance sheet, it was found that Mr. Mahesh Advani and Mrs. Ritu Advani have taken various loans from various financial institutions and have siphoned off the said amount for their personal use and benefit and they had withdrawn huge amount from M/s. Hariom Marketing for purchasing properties and for making investments in creating new business ventures. It was noticed that large amount came to be withdrawn by way of self cheques during the period between 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2010 from the Bank Account of the partnership firm and sizable amount was transferred to his personal account from the account of the partnership firm. It was the case on behalf of the respondent herein that despite repeated request to give statement of accounts, appellants under one or the other pretext avoided to provide the correct financial status of the accounts, and therefore, the respondent herein approached this Court by preferring an application under Section 11 of the Act, being Application No. 89/2012 for the appointment of Arbitrator. This Court vide order dated 22/02/2013 appointed the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

[2.2] The respondent herein lodged the statement of claims before the learned Arbitral tribunal to determine the correct account of the partnership firm from 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2010 and directed them to bring back the amount of Rs. 5,90,94,376/- as mentioned in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the statement of claims. The appellants herein filed preliminary objections at Exh. 8. It was submitted that since all the accounts were settled and all the necessary documents were exchanged between the parties at the time of separation of the partnership, there was no need to provide any