Third party cannot challenge the arbitration award.

These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned single Judge in Application No. 169 of 2007 in O.P.D.No.34482 of 2006 and Application No.353/07 in O.P.No.535 of 2006. By the impugned order, Application No.169 of 2007 in O.P.D.No.34482 of 2006 filed by Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited (for short CCTPL) seeking to recall and set aside the order dated 1. 2007, as well as Application No.353 of 2007 in O.P.No. 535 of 2006 filed by Union of India (for short UOI) to implead itself as the second petitioner in the petition were dismissed by the learned single Judge. Both CCTPL and UOI have appealed against the order.

2. The facts leading to these appeals are that in November 1997, tenders were invited by the Chennai Port Trust (ChPT for short) to take over, maintain, manage and operate the existing Container Terminal at Chennai Port for a period of 30 years on a revenue sharing basis. The P & O Ports Australia, which was a successful bidder, formed a special purpose vehicle called Chennai Container Terminal Limited, which later became a private limited company i.e., CCTPL. The ChPT entered into an agreement on 09.08.2001 with CCTPL. The agreement provided for land lease charges in accordance with the Scale of Rates (SOR) as notified by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP). The Ministry issued certain policy guidelines which were incorporated in the order of the TAMP dated 211. 2001. ChTP claimed that applying the SOR, as notified by TAMP, a sum of Rs.22,84,14,770/- was payable by CCTPL towards annual escalation at 5% of the lease rent. Subsequently, the demand was raised to Rs.39,38,10,972 including one years rent as premium and one years rent as security deposit. However, as CCTPL raised a dispute, the mater was referred to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal by its award dated 08.03.2006 rejected the claim of ChPT and allowed the counter claim of the CCTPL to the extent that the ChPT shall adjust the sum of Rs. 33,77,09,219/-along with simple interest at 9% per annum from 28th February 2005 till the date of adjustment against the dues payable by CCTPL.

3. The ChPT challenged the award of the Arbitral Tribunal by a petition on 28.03.2006, which was later on numbered as O.P.No.535 of 2006 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for brevity sake referred to as the Act). It appears that this petition was fixed for hearing on 110. 2006, and thereafter adjourned on several occasions on the request of the counsel for ChPT. In the meantime, the UOI filed Appl.No.49 of 2007 on 09.01.2007 seeking leave to file a petition under Section 34 of the Act to set aside the award dated 08.03.2006, and this petition was moved before the learned single Judge on the same day and came to be allowed exparte. The CCTPL filed Application No.169 of 2006 for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2007 contending inter alia that UOI cannot seek to set aside the award as it is not a party to either the arbitration agreement or the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal. Subsequently, UOI filed Application No.353 of 2007 for impleading itself as the second petitioner in O.P.No. 535 of 2006. The learned single Judge by order dated 09.03.2007 dismissed Application No.169 of 2007 as well as Application No.353 of 2007. The findings of the learned single Judge are summed up in paragraph-17, which reads as follows: -

“Though Government of India was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, it was a party non-signatory. Therefore, not only a party to the arbitration agreement but a party non-signatory also can challenge the impugned award passed by the learned arbitrator. Further, the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the proposition of law that an aggrieved party can challenge the judgment will have to be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. The contextual facts and