JUDGEMENT

1. In these appeals, the appellants have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the similar impugned orders dated 20.4.2022 whereby, the applications filed by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (Arbitration Act) were dismissed by the Commercial Court.

A.A. No.46 of 2022

2. This appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act assails the order dated 20.4.2022 whereby the application of appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed merely by giving two reasons. Firstly, application filed under section 34 is barred by limitation. Secondly, the grounds taken in the application filed under section 34 are not sufficient to disturb the award of the learned Arbitrator.

Appellant’s contentions :--

3. Shri Amit Seth, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that so far question of limitation is concerned, the learned Commercial Court has passed the order without considering its own finding wherein while rejecting an application under section 34(3) of Arbitration Act of the respondent, the Commercial Court itself recorded that the application under section 34 was filed within time. Reliance is placed on order of Court below dated 3.7.2019 whereby the application preferred by the respondent under section 34(3) was rejected by the Court below.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court to the grounds taken in the application preferred under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, urged that appellant had raised various grounds which fall within the ambit and scope of section 34 of the said Act. The learned Commercial Court considered and reproduced the contentions of the parties up to para 5 of the impugned order.

5. Thereafter, the Court framed a question and the Court recorded its finding from para 7 to 8 relating to limitation. The Court then reproduced the judgments cited by the parties and referred the relevant statutory provisions.

6. For the reasons stated above and as per previous order of Court below dated 3.7.2019, para-9 is pregnant with an erroneous finding that the application filed under section 34 was barred by limitation. Thereafter, again upto paragraph 15, the tribunal either reproduced the statutory provisions or mentioned the judgments cited by the parties.

7. In para 16 of the impugned order, the tribunal directly reached to a conclusion that the grounds taken by the appellant assailing the award do not fall within the ambit of section 34 (2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act.

8. It is further recorded that award is against ‘public policy’ could not be established by the appellant and therefore the application is dismissed.

9. Shri Amit Seth, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the Court below has not assigned any reason as to why the grounds taken by the appellant were not found to be trustworthy. There is no iota of discussion by considering each ground taken by the State and by assigning reason as to why the said grounds do not fall within the ambit of section 34 of the said Act. The Court below directly jumped to the ‘conclusion’ without assigning any ‘reason’. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in A.A. No.01/2012 (General Manager BSNL v. Anil Kumar Tripathi) decided on 22.4.2016 (Gwalior Bench). It is urged that for this reason alone, impugned order is liable to set aside and matter may be remitted back to the Court below to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/State further submits that section 34(2)(iv) makes it clear that when arbitral award is passed on a point not contemplated or not falling within the terms of submission to arbitration or it contains decision on matters beyond the scope of submission to arbitration, interference can be made. The Court below although mentioned the grounds and factual backdrop raised by appellant in sufficient deta