The court affirmed that arbitral awards can only be set aside on specific grounds under the Arbitration Act, emphasizing limited scope for appellate review.

JUDGMENT :

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.)

OMPM-346 of 2024

Notice. Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent.

The main appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as ‘Act’), is barred by 35 days. Hence, this application has been moved for condoning the aforesaid delay.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that she has no objection for condoning the delay. Taking note of this submission as also the grounds taken in the application, I am satisfied that cogent reasons have been Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes made out by the applicant for condoning the delay in instituting the appeal. Accordingly the application is allowed and delay is condoned.

Application to stand disposed of.

Arbitration Appeal No.31 of 2025 Be registered.

2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage.

The appellant preferred a claim petition seeking recovery of Rs.2,66,000/- from the respondent. Learned Arbitrator vide award dated 09.09.2019 dismissed the claim petition. The appellant next preferred objections under Section 34 of the Act before learned District Judge, Kangra. The objections were dismissed on 12.07.2024. The appellant has now invoked Section 37 of the Act for setting aside order dated 12.07.2024 passed by learned District Judge and award dated 09.09.2019 passed by learned Arbitrator.

3. The case.

3(i). An agreement was entered into between the parties on 12.03.2009 for crop-setting, extraction of resin from 6560 resin blazes and carriage of the same upto road- side depot. The agreement concerned Lot No.20-R/2009/Dharamshala. The target for the appellant for extraction was 242.72 quintal from 6560 resin blazes of the aforesaid lot @ 37 quintals per section and at the rate of Rs.1,195/- per quintal. As per the agreement, the work was to be completed by 30.11.2009.

3(ii). The appellant extracted 142.40 quintals of pure resin as against 242.72 quintals target given to him under the agreement. There was a shortfall of 100.28 quintals in the extraction of the resin. At the request of the appellant and on considering the material available, the Director North vide office letter dated 30.06.2010, waived shortfall of 24.27 quintals. There was still shortfall 76.01 quintals. Rs.2,26,035/- were recovered from the appellant, as loss caused to the respondent in view of less extraction of resin than the target fixed in the agreement.

3(iii). The appellant raised a dispute which was referred to the learned Arbitrator.

3(iv). Learned Arbitrator vide award dated 09.09.2019, dismissed the claim holding that the appellant had signed the agreement deed with the respondent for providing 242.72 quintals of pure resin after extraction at the end of the year 2009. The appellant did not immediately start his work; Five notices were issued to him by the respondents directing to speed up extraction work, in order to achieve the target as per the agreement; Appellant failed to achieve the fixed target as per the agreement; The reasons being projected by the appellant for loss in the yield of resin extraction during the year 2009 were never reported by him to the respondents during the currency of the resin extraction/agreement; It was only after recovery for the shortfall in resin extraction by the respondent, the appellant decided to raise a dispute and proceed against the respondent in arbitral proceedings. The appellant could not lead any cogent evidence in support of his claim for recovery of the amount claimed by him.

3(v). The objections preferred under Section 34 of the Act by the appellant against the aforesaid award, were dismissed by learned District Judge on 12.07.2024. Learned District Judge concluded that the appellant could not bring his objections within the purview of grounds available for challenging the award under Section 34 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the aw