JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 37(1)(c)of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1 Kamrup (M) Guwahati in Misc. Arbitration Appeal No.25 of 2017.

3. The appellant is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. On 30.01.2012, it entered into an agreement with the respondent for hiring a particular machine. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.1,60,000/- plus service tax. The term of agreement was for twelve months from the date of commissioning of the machine at the designated site. It was agreed between the parties that the appellant would carry away the machine from its original site. Subsequently, the site of commissioning of the machine was changed to another place instead of the original intended site. Therefore, a supplementary agreement was also entered into between the parties on 31.01.2012. The machine was delivered to the appellant and the tenure of the agreement was to continue till 221.05.2013.

4. The machine was not returned by the appellant within stipulated time and therefore, the respondent sustained financial loss. However, in the month February, 2015, the machine was returned to the respondent. They found that serious damage was caused to the machine because of lack of proper maintenance by the appellant. Therefore, the respondent staked the claim of Rs.1,96,56,669/-.

5. The appellant has claimed that the machine which it had hired from the respondent was required to be installed on land, which made the same to be an immovable property as per Section 2(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1908. Therefore, the appellant claimed that its agreement with the respondent should have been registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

6. The dispute ultimately went to the Arbitrator. The Arbitration Tribunal agreed with the respondent holding that the respondent would be entitled to be paid by the appellant, (1) the rent from May, 2013 to January, 2015, (2) amount of cost of repairing of the plant, (3) interest at the rate of 12% per annum upon the total amount of arrear rent and cost of repair and some other reliefs.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Arbitrator, an appeal under Section 34 of the Act was filed. The learned appellate court agreed with the decision of the Arbitrator and dismissed the appeal.

8. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made learned counsel of both sides.

9. Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is based on Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and the scope of the provisions for setting aside the award is far less than it was under the Sections 30 or 33 of the 1940 Act. The new Act was brought into being with the express Parliamentary objective of curtailing judicial intervention. Section 34 significantly reduces the extent of possible challenge to an award.

10. Section 34 provides that an arbitral award may be set aside by a court on certain grounds specified therein. These grounds are :

1. Incapacity of a party

2. Arbitration agreement not being valid

3. Party not given proper notice of arbitral proceedings

4. Nature of dispute not falling within the terms of submission to arbitration

5. Arbitral procedure not being in accordance with the agreement

11. Section 34(2)(b) mentions two more grounds which are left with the Court itself to decide whether to set aside the arbitral award :

1. Dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitral process

2. The award is in conflict with the public policy of India.

12. Thus the powers of the court U/S. 34 is limited and courts should not expand their own powers granted by the statute. Any such attempts by the courts while exercising their powers under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall frustrate the purpose of the above said Act itself. In P.R. Shah, Sha