Key Points

Question

Key Points

Accepted Answer

The petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award dated 16.08.2025 passed by the learned sole arbitrator (!) . The petitioner is a partner in M/S Radha Sarweshwar Marble & Granite, a registered partnership firm set up on 06.06.2012, and the dispute arose between the petitioner and the other partners (!) . A legal notice dated 05.06.2018 was served to provide books of account, and a notice dated 14.07.2018 was issued for dissolution of the firm (!) . Arbitration proceedings were sought via a notice dated 15.09.2018 under Section 21 of the Act (!) . The petitioner prayed for a declaration of being a 1/3rd partner, entitlement to 1/3rd share in assets, and directions to render true accounts including bank statements, ITRs, and balance sheets from 2012 onwards (!) . The arbitrator framed issues regarding recovery of sums, interest, rendition of accounts for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19, control of books of accounts, and siphoning of funds (!) . The claim of the petitioner to be a 1/3rd partner was admitted by the partners, so no declaration was called for (!) . The dispute regarding financial irregularities and non-production of books was rejected due to the petitioner's failure to prove alleged irregularities (!) . The arbitrator concluded that all partners contributed to the final accounts and the petitioner had access to accounts from 2012 to 2018 (!) . The petitioner argued that partners claimed books were with them initially but later produced balance sheets, creating contradictions (!) . The petitioner alleged siphoning of funds to new entities violating Section 16 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, citing discrepancies where partners withdrew large sums via banking channels while payments to the petitioner were in cash without corresponding cash book entries (!) . The petitioner contended that the arbitrator failed to consolidate all assets and liabilities for dissolution to determine the petitioner's share (!) . The petitioner was admitted to have had no access to books of account to determine irregularities, though the arbitrator held the petitioner had access (!) . The petitioner was only dealing with material purchases and had no concern with sales, a claim rejected upon cross-examination (!) . The petitioner's prayer for books of account from 2012 onwards was barred by limitation as the notice was for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 (!) . The petitioner's involvement in sales was rejected, and accounts cannot be prepared without partners rendering their respective accounts (!) . The petitioner failed to prove financial irregularities with specific elaboration, making the claim a bald statement (!) . The contradiction in partners' conduct regarding location of account books does not enhance the petitioner's case (!) . The petitioner failed to prove financial discrepancies despite the production of financial statements by a chartered accountant (!) . The contention regarding the opening of new partnership firms was not pressed before the arbitrator and remained a suspicion (!) . The attempt to trace the source of funds for payments to the petitioner was deemed a far-fetched attempt in Section 34 proceedings (!) . There was no claim raised by the petitioner for dissolution of the firm, making the grievance ill-founded (!) . The Supreme Court has held that challenges to arbitral awards under Section 34 are limited to specific grounds and do not allow reappreciation of evidence (!) . The court cannot act as an appellate court; interference is permitted only if the award is contrary to public policy, fundamental policy of Indian law, or involves patent illegality (!) . In Ramesh Kumar Jain vs. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, it was held that Section 34 mandates a narrow lens of supervisory jurisdiction and courts do not sit in appeal (!) . In Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited Vs. Software Technology Parks of India, it was held that Section 34 is not an appellate provision and the court cannot reappraise evidence if two views are possible (!) . In PSA Sical Terminals Pvt Ltd vs. The Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust, it was held that interference is limited to situations where findings are arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or shock the conscience of the court (!) . After the 2015 Amendment, contravention of Indian public policy includes fraud, corruption, violation of Sections 75/81, fundamental policy of Indian law, and conflict with basic notions of justice or morality (!) . Sub-section (2-A) of Section 34 provides that in domestic arbitrations, violation of Indian public policy also includes patent illegality appearing on the face of the award (!) . An award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of evidence (!) . The view taken by the arbitrator is a possible one and is not vitiated by patent illegality, perversity, or conflict in public policy (!) . The petition is dismissed and all pending applications are dismissed (!) .

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAHAVEER SINGH RAJAWAT – Appellant
Versus
M/S RADHA SARWESHWAR MARBLE AND GRANITE & ORS. – Respondent

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIMAHAVEER SINGH RAJAWAT – AppellantVersusM/S RADHA SARWESHWAR MARBLE AND GRANITE & ORS. – Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAHAVEER SINGH RAJAWAT – Appellant
Versus
M/S RADHA SARWESHWAR MARBLE AND GRANITE & ORS. – Respondent