The judgment emphasizes the narrow scope of interference with an arbitral award and the principle of waiver in raising new grounds on appeal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Clause XV of Madras High Court Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 (1) (c) of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 10.01.2020 in O.P.No.266 of 2016 and consequently set aside the award dated 01.11.2015.)

Sunder Mohan, J.

1. The above Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the O.P.No.266 of 2016, dated 10.01.2020 filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the said Act.

2. A dispute arose between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent with regard to the terms of the contract entered into between them for the work described as Civil Structure and allied works for construction of plants, buildings, etc., for New Zirconium Oxide & Sponge in the year 2005 at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. The dispute was referred to the learned Arbitrator appointed by the Appellant under Clause 25 of the said contract. The Arbitrator, after conducting several hearings over a period of six years, passed an Award allowing two sub claims in claim No.13 and allowing the claims under ten other heads in favour of the first respondent and negativing the claims under two heads. The counter claim of the Appellant under eight heads were negatived by the learned Arbitrator. Thus, the learned Arbitrator passed an Award directing the payment of Rs.9,40,96,317/- (Rupees Nine Crores Forty Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred and Seventeen Only) along with interest upto the date of Award, by the Appellant to the 1st respondent. In the Award it was further directed that if the payments were not made before 31.12.2015, the Award shall carry a Simple Interest of 15% from the date of publishing the Award till the date of payment.

3. The Award was challenged before this Court in O.P.No.266 of 2016 on various grounds. However, realizing the limited grounds available for challenging an Award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the learned counsel for the Appellant restricted his challenge on two grounds before the learned Single Judge. The first ground was that the Award was liable to be set aside because it dealt with disputes not falling within the terms of submissions to Arbitration and it contained decisions on matters beyond the scope of submissions to Arbitration. The second ground raised was that the learned Arbitrator had raised bills, which were very high and which were in conflict with basic notions of morality and justice. The Appellant also submitted that the Respondent had paid enhanced fee claimed by the Arbitrator and this tantamounts to inducement, resulting in the Award being vitiated by fraud and corruption.

4. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions elaborately and found that as per the Clause 25 of the Contract, which contained the Arbitral Agreement, the Arbitrator can adjudicate disputes referred to the Arbitrator by the Appointing Authority. The learned Single Judge found that, by the Proceedings dated 04.11.2008 bearing reference No.13/1 (3)/2002-I&M (NFC)/1441 of the Secretary to the Government of India, it was clear that the Appointing Authority had not made any restrictions with regard to the disputes which could be decided by the learned Arbitrator. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that the learned Arbitrator did not decide disputes beyond the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. The learned Single Judge negatived the said contention also on the ground that this issue was not raised before the learned Arbitrator. As regards, the ground relating to fraud and corruption, the learned Single Judge found that the learned Arbitrator had charged a fee less than Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) which is the ceiling for claims above Rs.20,00,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Crores only). In any event, the learned Single Judge found that enhanceme