ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur, wherein application filed by the petitioner under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’), has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arbitral award dated 02.02.2019 has been put to challenge by the respondent by filing application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 in the Commercial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner moved an application under Section 34 (4) of the Act of 1996 to adjourn the proceedings in the application filed by the respondent and asked to give an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal was required to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by filing application under Section 34 (4) of the Act of 1996, the petitioner pleaded that the arbitral award was passed on 02.02.2019 in favour of the petitioner while recording the findings in paras 50 & 54 of the award.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner pointed out before the court below that while passing the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal inadvertently did not take into account certain important facts such as:-

(i) the award of the Arbitral Tribunal omitted the adjudication on each issue to give findings on the issue separately.

(ii) Omitted to explain the words where “bare minimum principles of natural justice” and in “hyper technical ground” used in paragraph 50, while setting aside the impugned termination order dated 09.06.2017.

(iii) Omitted the reasons for providing INR Rs.4,80,00,000/ against loss of business, reputation & goodwill and omitted to assign explanation for setting aside the counter claim of the respondent-applicant in the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power given to the Commercial Court under Section 34 (4) of the Act of 1996 was required to be exercised and the very object of the Act of 1996 was to give finality to the award and as per Section 34 (4) of the Act of 1996, the Arbitral Tribunal was required to be given an opportunity to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the award under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kinnari Mullick & Anr. Vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani (AIR 2017 SC 2785); only three procedural formalities were to be considered while granting a relief under Section 34 (4) namely (i) a request by a party; (ii) the award must not have been set-aside under Section 34 (iii) there must exist grounds on which the award may be set-aside under Section 34.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while deciding the application by impugned order dated 27.05.2019, the court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a respondent before the Court and he had not filed any objection against the impugned award.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has further committed an error in law by holding that precedent condition to move an application under Section 34 (4) is that a party must be aggrieved by the impugned award and had challenged the award under Section 34 for the deficiency in arbitral award.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly recorded a finding that bare perusal of the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal showed that each issue had been taken separately and the contentions and issues were decided and all these aspects were required to be looked into at the time of final arguments.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below has not kept in mind the law la