Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the scope for setting aside an arbitral award under Sections 34 and 37 is limited, emphasizing the need for substantial legal grounds and deference to arbitral decisions.

Order :

MANEESH SHARMA, J.

1. The present miscellaneous appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act'), challenging the judgment dated 01.03.2011 passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Alwar in Civil Misc. Nos. 141/2005 and 474/2005, whereby the challenge to the arbitral award(s) under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the non-claimant/appellant has been dismissed.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned order, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Alwar in exercise of its powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has confirmed the award(s) passed by the learned Arbitrator.

3. Nevertheless as regards to an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (either setting aside the award or upholding the award) an appeal is provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, however, the contours of the proceedings under Section 37 are more limited in terms of scope and ambit of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

4. Therefore the short question that is posed for consideration before this court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Alwar is justified in confirming the award(s), while dismissing the application under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

5. The brief facts of the case are that Agreements Nos. 8/86-87 and 9/86-87 were executed between the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Division Alwar, Rajasthan (present appellant) and M/s. Devendra Pal Singh (present respondent) for construction work of Jhiroli Canal from Chain zero to Chain 120 (Agreement No. 8/86-87) and Chain 120 to Chain Tail (Agreement No. 9/86-87), Minor Irrigation Project, Alwar. During the subsistence of the said agreements, certain disputes arose between the parties. Therefore, relying on Clause 23 of the contract, the claimant/respondent raised a dispute, therefore vide order no. F8(8) ASI/I/Cell/94/2701 dated 20.09.1998, Shri S.C. Saxena, Director (Dam), ID & R Irrigation Unit, Jaipur (Retired), was appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

6. Before the learned Arbitrator, the claimant/respondent filed its statement of claim of Rs.3,43,110/- and [(Rs.2,62,264/- + 73,597/-) (including Item No.9)] plus interest, mainly on the following grounds:

(i) Labour remainaing idle due to late issue of cement;

(ii) Cutlivators hinderances; (iii) Late compaction of E/W;

(iv) Shortage of budget;

(v) Mixer Machine and Vibrator charges; and

(vi) Escalation charges (excavated hard soil contrary to Schedule G, ordinary soil)

7. The non-claimant/appellant filed its statement of defence and counter-claim of Rs.2,58,812/- plus interest @ 18% and Rs.2,46,293/- plus interest @ 18% and Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of Arbitration. Thereafter, rejoinders were filed by the claimant/respondent. Subsequently, a reply to the said rejoinder was also filed by the non-claimant/appellant.

8. Thereafter, the claimant/respondent was examined himself as a witness, and three (3) witnesses were examined by the non-claimant/appellant.

9. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the learned Arbitrator framed three the following three (3) issues for consideration on 22.09.2003:

(i) Preliminary Objections;

(ii) Claim of the Claimant and interest; and

(iii) Counter-claim of the non-Claimant and interest on it.

10. Thereafter, the learned Arbitrator decided the issue No. (i) and (iii) against the non-claimant/appellant, whereas issue No. (ii) was partly decided in favour of the claimant/respondent, and a