The court confirmed that judicial interference in arbitral awards is limited to cases of patent illegality or perverse findings, respecting the finality of arbitration.

JUDGMENT :

Pranav Trivedi, J.

1. The instant First Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), challenging the judgment and order dated 30.01.2021 passed by the Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred as to “the Commercial Court) in Commercial Civil Misc. Application No.26 of 2018, wherein the Commercial Court rejected the application preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal is that the appellant and the respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for development of Multiplex Theaters on land situated at Survey No. 46 admeasuring 7010 square meters of Vejalpur TPS No. 4 situated at Regency Center, Near Prahlad Nagar, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad on 01.02.2008. As per the clauses of the MoU and subsequently the contract, there were reciprocal promises for performance. It was the case of respondent that as per the clauses contained in the contract, particularly clauses iv, v(a) etc., the responsibility for performance of certain obligations was on the appellant and its Architects. This was mainly with respect to drawings certified by the Architect of the appellant and the designs. Therefore, it was the case of the respondent that the designs, layouts, specifications, etc. were not done by the appellant and that has resulted into delaying fulfilling the promises of the contract.

2.1 Similarly, it was the case of the appellant that the respondent had entered into a contract with Aditya Birla Ltd. for taking the Mall on lease and they entered into MOAT dated 01.03.2008 and as per said agreement, Aditya Birla Limited for the remaining portion of the Mall, which was to be taken on lease. There were dispute between the respondent and Architects of Aditya Birla Group, which has resulted into termination of the contract and during the pendency of the dispute between the respondent and Aditya Birla Group, the whole structure of Mall was demolished. With such cross allegations, the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. Subsequent to the dispute, being referred to the Arbitrator, the statement of claims, written statements, oral evidences, documentary evidences, etc. were filed by the respective parties, even a counter claim also came to be preferred by the present appellant. By way of award dated 19.12.2017, the learned Sole Arbitrator allowed all the claims of the respondent, whereas counter claim of the appellant came to be rejected.

2.2 Being aggrieved by the award dated 19.12.2017, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, the appellant herein preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act. By way of order dated 30.01.2021, the application preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed. This order of dismissal in the application under Section 34 of the Act is assailed in the present appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior advocate with Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, learned senior advocate with Mr.Umesh D. Shukla, learned senior advocate with Mr. Manav Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent.

4. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior advocate has submitted that the conclusion drawn and findings arrived at by the learned Sole Arbitrator are patently illegal. Patent illegality can be violation of substantive law, violation of any provisions of the Act and violation in terms of the contract or the finding may be perverse. So If the appellant is able to show that there was only one view, which is possible, then the Court may set aside the award as well as the order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator passed below under Section 34 application. Mr. Mehta, learned senior advocate for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Sole Arbitrator grossly erred in coming to a conclusion that the appellant was responsible for breaching the obligations and respondent was not respon