IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that an arbitrator's award is final unless proven arbitrary or against public policy, emphasizing the necessity of rectifying procedural defects in claims.

JUDGMENT :

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

1. In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated December 16, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad in CIS No. ARB-63-2020. The learned Additional District Judge relied on the decision reported in 2009 (5) SCC 142 Kwality Mfg. Corpn. Vs. Central Warehousing Corpn. to come to the finding that the Arbitral Tribunal dated 29.02.2020 by way of majority award took a plausible view which did not merit any interference. The majority award being neither against the public policy of India nor being vitiated by patent illegality or error appearing on the face of the award, on the ground of erroneous application of law and re-appreciation of the evidence, whether oral or documentary, was the reason the award was not interfered with. The relevant portion relied on by the learned Additional District Judge in Central Warehousing Corpn. (supra) is reproduced herein below:-

“The Court while considering challenge to arbitral award does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the arbitrator, which is what the High Court has practically done in this matter. The umpire is legitimately entitled to take the view which he holds to be the correct one after considering the material before him and after interpreting the provisions of the agreement. If he does so, the decision of the umpire has to be accepted as final and binding.”

2. The learned Additional District Judge also relied on the case of Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49 and Saanggyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited Vs. National Highways Authority of India reported in 2019 (15) SCC 131 to come to the finding that neither any public policy of India has been violated nor has any patent illegality been caused by the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Relevant portion of Associate Builders (supra) relied upon by him is reproduced herein below:-

“41. In case ‘Associate builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority’ Civil appeal no.10531 of 2014 decided on 25.11.2014, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that an arbitrator is the sole judge of quantity and quality of evidence when he awarded the award. Thus, the award cannot be held invalid unless the court comes to the conclusion that the arbitrator acted arbitrary, capricious or perverse. The Court can interfere, if court comes to the conclusion that the award is against the public policy particularly when it shocked conscious of the court. In case, the Court found that the Arbitrator approach is neither arbitrary nor capricious, then no interference is called for on facts. Further, the Court is permitted to interfere only when arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair minded or reasonable person can do. Further, the Court is not permitted to interfere on the ground that another view is possible, but certainly it can interfere if there is a patent illegality or perversity appear on the face of it.”

3. The relevant extract from Saanggyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited (supra) is reproduced herein below:-

“42. Similarly, in case of Saanggyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited Vs. National Highways Authority of India, 2019 (15) SCC 131, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was held after the amendment of the Act was carried out and an additional ground of ‘patent illegality’ was incorporated in sub-section 2A of Section 34 of the Act. In that case, the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is reproduced as under:-

“36. Thus, it is clear that public policy of India is now constricted to mean firstly, that a domestic award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, as understood in paras 18 and 27 of Associate Builders, or secondly, that such award is against basic notions of justice or morality as understood in paras 36 to 39 of Asso