The scope of interference in an award is limited, and an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The above appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge dismissing O.P.Nos.742 and 743 of 2007 dated 12.03.2012 filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the said Act.

2. A dispute arose between the appellant and the first respondent with regard to the terms of two contracts entered into between them for the construction of Head Post Office and Post Masters’ Quarters at Postal Staff quarters, Thirukovilur. The dispute was referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the appellant in respect of the contract which formed the subject matter of the award No. MJ/ARB/200/2 which was challenged in O.P.No.742 of 2007. The first respondent made claims under ten heads. The appellant made counter claim under three heads. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties allowed claim numbers 3, 4 and 10 made by the first respondent and counter claim numbers 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant. The Arbitrator rejected all other claims by the parties. In respect of the contract which formed the subject matter of the award no.MJ/ARB/200/1 which was challenged in O.P.No.743 of 2007, the first respondent made claims under eleven heads. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties allowed four claims and one counter claim in favour of the appellant. The Arbitrator rejected all the other claims made by the parties. The first respondent accepted both the awards of the Arbitrator and did not challenge them. The appellant challenged the awards in O.P.Nos.742 and 743 of 2007.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant contended that the awards passed by the Arbitrator was against public policy and therefore had to be set aside. The first respondent herein contended that the appellant had not made out any ground to show as to how the awards were against public policy and that there was no need to interfere with the awards passed by the Arbitrator. The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions and found on facts that the awards passed by the Arbitrator was reasonable and that the appellant had not made out any ground to interfere with the awards. In any event, the appellant had not established that the awards were against public policy and dismissed the petitions.

4. Against the said common order passed in O.P.Nos.742 and 743 of 2007, the appellant has come out with the present appeals in O.S.A.Nos.237 and 242 of 2013.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that claims ought not to have been allowed by the Arbitrator as the first respondent had not established as to how he was entitled to make those claims. The claimant/ first respondent had not produced any documentary proof to substantiate the alleged loss suffered by him on account of the delay in completion of the project. Further, the contract also did not provide for grant of compensation for the losses on account of the delay in completion of the project. The arbitrator had erroneously awarded interest as claimed by the first respondent which was also contrary to the contract entered into between the appellant and the first respondent. The interest awarded in any event was excessive and prayed for allowing the appeals.

6. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the appellant had not made out any grounds that are available for challenging awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the petitions under Section 34 of the said Act. The appellant has not established that the awards were against public policy. The submissions made by the appellant are on merits and an application under Section 34 of the said Act cannot be equated with an appeal. The proviso to Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, states that an award cannot be set aside even if there is an error in the appreciation of facts and law. But, in this case, the learned Single Judge had