IMPORTANT POINT
An arbitral award can only be set aside on specific grounds, including patent illegality and violation of public policy, and the arbitrator's findings must be supported by evidence and not be perverse.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th February 2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi in Commercial Case No. 01 of 2020 dismissing the petition filed on behalf of the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996’) challenging the award dated 11th March 2018 passed by the learned Arbitrator. A prayer has also been made to set aside the award dated 11th March 2018 passed by the learned Arbitrator.

3. The learned Arbitrator passed an award dated 11th March 2018 directing the appellant to restore the dealership within 3 months from the date of the award failing which respondent No. 1 would be entitled to damages @ Rs 40,000/- per month from the date of cancellation of the dealership till the date of restoration of the dealership. Learned Arbitrator further directed that respondent No. 1 would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as cost of arbitration which was to be paid within 2 months from the date of the award with interest @12% per annum failing which, it would carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of award till date of payment.

4. Background of the case

a. The appellant issued an advertisement for the appointment of retail outlet (commonly known as petrol pump) dealers for several locations in Jharkhand on 27th June 2010 guided by the Brochure for Selection of Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet Dealers dated 15.09.2008. The terms and conditions were also mentioned in the advertisement.

b. The Respondent No. 1 applied for the location Barsot, Hazaribagh vide application dated 27th July 2010. Since the applicants had to offer "own land" or provide a "firm offer” from the landowner for purchase/lease of the site, respondent No. 1 mentioned in Para 12 (ka) of the application that Lauki Prasad and Jagdish Prasad were owners of the land being offered and further stated that his relationship with landowners was that of lessee. Along with his application, Respondent No. 1 submitted an affidavit sworn by Lauki Prasad and Jagdish Prasad wherein they had stated that they were owners of the land and if Respondent No. 1 was selected as dealer of retail outlet, they would give the land on lease to him for a period of 30 years. The interview was held on 3rd September 2010 in which respondent No. 1 stood first. Another applicant, namely, Motilal Choudhary filed a complaint by letters dated 14th September 2010 and 25th September 2010 stating that the Selection Committee had given marks to respondent No. 1 in violation of the Selection Brochure. Subsequently, the Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued to the respondent No. 1 on 13th August 2011.

c. Lauki Prasad, Balgovind Prasad, Jagdish Prasad, and Babuni Prasad all belonging to a common ancestor executed a registered lease deed no. 347 of 2012 dated 3rd March 2012 for the land involved in this case in favour of respondent no.1 and the appellant took possession of the land. The subject land was partly bought by Lauki Prasad by registered sale deed being no. 3056 of 2012 and partly by Jagdish Prasad by registered sale deed being no. 3055 of 2012. Both sale deeds were executed by Balgovind Prasad father of Jagdish Prasad and uncle of Lauki Prasad on 17th December 2012.

d. Dispensing Pump and Selling License (DPSL) was granted in favour of respondent No. 1 on 30th March 2013 and a retail outlet was commissioned.

e. Based on the earlier complaint made by Motilal Choudhary dated 14th September 2010 and 25th September 2010 alleging that respondent No. 1 had submitted false information in his application dated 27th July 2010 and also the affidavit of Lauki Prasad and Jagdish Prasad dated 24th July 2010 submitted along with the application contained a false statement with regards to the ownership of the subject land, a show cause notice dated 24th August 2015 was issued to the respondent No. 1 by the app