M. SUNDAR, J.

1. This intra-court appeal before us is a statutory appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘A and C Act ‘for the sake of brevity).

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 04.08.2016, made by a learned single judge, on the Original Side of this Court, in a petition before him under Section 34 of the A and C Act i.e., O.P.No.355 of 2011.

3. Along with O.P.No.355 of 2011, learned single Judge had also disposed of an application, being A.No.2913 of 2016, with a prayer to receive documents and a Contempt Petition, being Contempt Petition No.1997 of 2013, for the alleged violation of orders of this Court dated 21.04.2010 made in Application No.6160 of 2009. In other words, the order of the learned single Judge called in question before us is a common order made in O.P.No.355 of 2011, A.No.2913 of 2016 and Cont.P.No.1997 of 2013.

4. While O.P.No.355 of 2011 is the parent petition, the application and the contempt petition arise out of and in the course of parent petition.

5. Bare minimum facts, which according to us are necessary for appreciating our order, are set out infra under the caption “Factual Matrix”.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

5 (i). Appellant before us is one V.S. Ekambaram, Proprietor of Sangupani Fuels. Sole appellant before us is the sole respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal. Respondent before us is a Private Limited Company (a juristic person), which goes by the name of Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries [Madras] Pvt. Ltd., represented by one of its Directors. Sole respondent before us is the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal.

5 (ii). Be that as it may, for the sake of convenience and clarity, the sole appellant before us is referred to as ‘E’ and the sole respondent before us is referred as ‘Krishna Tiles’.

5 (iii) When we say Arbitral Tribunal, we refer to a sole Arbitrator being a retired District Judge, who was appointed by this Court in proceedings under Section 11 of the A and C Act, where both the E and Krishna Tiles participated.

5 (iv) Admitted facts, as between E and Krishna Tiles, reveal that there was a transaction between them wherein and whereby E was paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs by the Krishna Tiles.

5 (v) The transaction between E and Krishna Tiles is reflected in a written agreement dated 30.03.2006 and it is also supported by a promissory note of even date i.e., 30.03.2006, executed by E in favour of Krishna Tiles.

5 (vi) It is also seen from the records and it is not in dispute between the parties that Krishna Tiles had advanced the above said sum of Rs.30 lakhs by way of two cheques. Two cheques bear sequential Nos.697736 and 697737. Both the cheques are dated 31.03.2006 and drawn on ICICI Bank for sums of Rs.15 lakhs each.

5 (vii) It is also not in dispute that both the cheques were admittedly encashed by E.

5 (viii) The aforesaid agreement dated 30.03.2006 under which the aforesaid transaction of Rs.30,00,000/- took place between E and Krishna Tiles is hereinafter referred as ‘said agreement’ for the sake of convenience and clarity.

5 (ix) Post payment of Rs.30 lakhs by Krishna Tiles to E and encashment of cheques by E as set out supra, disputes arose between E and Krishna Tiles.

5 (x) There is an arbitration agreement between E and Krishna Tiles by way of a clause in the said agreement.

5 (xi) Owing to the disputes that arose between E and Kishna Tiles, the arbitration clause was invoked by Krishna Tiles, which led to the aforesaid Section 11 proceedings.

5 (xii) As set out supra, both E and Krishna Tiles participated in the Section 11 proceedings and a sole arbitrator was appointed by this Court. Thus, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted and the parties went for arbitration.

5 (xiii) Before the Arbitral Tribunal, Krishna Tiles inter alia made a claim for the aforesaid sum of Rs.30 lakhs paid by Krishna Tiles to E claiming that it was a loan transaction. Krishna Tiles claimed the above said sum of Rs.30 lak