$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 02.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 24.02.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 24.02.2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 363/2019 DIVYA ASHISH JAMWAL .....Appellant Through: Dr. Riju Raj Singh Jamwal &

Mr. Manoj, Advs.

versus INDIA YAHAMA MOTOR PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arpit Dwivedi, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act’] is directed against the judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Learned Single Judge in O.M.P. No. 1107/2012, captioned India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Divya Ashish Jamwal [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟], whereby the Arbitral Award dated 16.04.2012 rendered by the Sole Arbitrator came to be set aside in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.

2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the Arbitral Award was contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties, was founded on surmises and extraneous considerations, and was unsupported by evidence on record. On the basis of these findings, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act and set aside the Arbitral Award in its entirety.

3. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to briefly notice the factual background leading to the passing of the Arbitral Award and the Impugned Judgment. The facts are set out hereinafter only to the extent necessary for examining the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Act and the scope of interference of this Court in the present Appeal under Section 37 of the Act.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The Appellant and the Respondent were governed by a Dealership Agreement dated 10.10.2005, under which the Appellant was appointed as an authorised dealer for the Respondent‟s motorcycles, spare parts and automotive products in the Jammu region. The agreement, which was valid for a period of three years, contained detailed provisions relating to the obligations of the dealer, termination of the dealership, and the consequences thereof, as well as an arbitration clause for the resolution of disputes between the parties. 5. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the Appellant herein invoked arbitration under the aegis of the Indian Council of Arbitration. In the original statement of claim, the Appellant sought, inter alia, monetary reliefs and a direction for resumption of supplies. During the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, the Respondent terminated the dealership by a notice dated 04.06.2007, whereupon the claimant amended the statement of claim to additionally seek compensation towards unsold spare parts and a direction requiring the Respondent to take back the said stock.

6. By the Arbitral Award dated 16.04.2012, the learned Sole Arbitrator, inter alia, awarded compensation towards loss of expected profits and establishment costs, and further directed the respondent to take back the stocks of spares, accessories, and fittings lying with the Appellant and to refund the full price thereof along with interest at the rate of 16% per annum with effect from 04.06.2007, subject to the conditions specified in the award.

7. It is in this backdrop that the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties fall for consideration.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES Contentions on behalf of the Appellant:

8. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act by re-appreciating the material on record and substituting the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal with their own. It is contended that the Arbitral Award was rendered after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. Learned counsel further submits that an objection as to the main