Courts under Sections 34/37 have narrow scope; no re-appreciation of evidence or interference absent patent perversity. Participation in proceedings waives arbitrator appointment objections.

By way of this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the appellant has assailed order dated 02.05.2015, passed by the learned Appellate Court in Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2010/RBT 1/2014, preferred by the present appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the award dated 01.02.2010, passed by learned Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration proceedings titled M/s Designer’s International Chandigarh versus The Block Development Officer, Nadaun. Learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the order passed by the learned District Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the learned District Judge has erred in not appreciating the statement of PW-1 in the correct perspective as a whole. He further submitted that learned District Judge erred in not appreciating that the learned Arbitrator was not having the jurisdiction to decide the case, which rendered the award to be non-est in the eyes of law. Learned Deputy Advocate General further argued that the learned District Judge erred in not appreciating that the learned Arbitrator had completely ignored the material aspects of the matter and exercised jurisdiction not vested in him and travelled beyond the agreement entered into between the parties. Accordingly, he argued that as the order passed by the learned District Judge was not sustainable in the eyes of law, the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that there was no perversity in the order passed by the learned District Judge, who decided the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act within the ambit and scope of jurisdiction to decide the same. Learned counsel submitted that the intent of the appellant herein was that the learned Court below should have decided the petition under as if it was deciding an appeal by re-appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record without appreciating that in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Court under is not to act as an Appellate Court and that the scope of interference is only if there is perversity writ large and if the award is demonstratively to be against the public policy of India. Learned counsel also submitted that now, in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Courts have to honour the award passed by the Arbitrator and if the Arbitrator has taken into consideration the respective contentions of the parties as also the material before the learned Arbitrator, then, simply because some other view is possible, the Court is not to substitute its view for that of the Arbitrator. He submitted that in this perspective if the order under challenge is gone through, no infirmity can be pointed out therein. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same be dismissed.

3. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the order passed by the learned District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

4. Before this Court proceed further, it would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UHL Power Company Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 116 (three Judges Judgment), in which judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia has been pleased to hold that the jurisdiction conferred on Courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is fairly narrow and when it comes to the scope of an appeal und