Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court's jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate. Arbitral tribunals possess plenary power under Section 19 to regulate procedural matters, including evidence admission, and interference is limited strictly to cases of perversity, illegality, or violation of fundamental policy.

1. The present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) has been filed by the Petitioner for setting aside the Impugned Award dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Sole Arbitrator whereby the Arbitrator has dismissed the claim of the Petitioner for loss of profit along with interest thereon as well as the cost of litigation.

2. The Petitioner, OSA Vendita Pvt. Ltd. carries on the business as a C & F agent (Clearing and Forwarding agent) and works as a distributor under the name and style of OSA Vendita Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner Company was initiated as a partnership in the name of Om Sai Agencies, but was later incorporated into a Company in the year 2004.

3. The Respondent, Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of eye care products including but not limited to lenses. It carries on such business from its office at Royd Street, Kolkata. The Respondent also has its registered office at 303, DLF South Court, A-1, Saket, New Delhi – 110017.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present Petition are as follows:

i. In 2003, the Respondent approached the Petitioner to act as the distributor of its eye care products in Kolkata. After reaching a mutual understanding, the Petitioner started to lift the stocks from the Respondent at invoice value and sold it to the Retailers at a profit of 8%. It is stated that it was mutually decided between the parties that the Petitioner would not require a sales team and that the work of sales and promotion would be done by the Respondent itself.

ii. On 24.09.2003, the Respondent entered into a distributorship agreement with the Petitioner which appointed it as a non-exclusive distributor to supply and distribute the products of the Respondent to the customers within the territory of Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘Agreement’). The Agreement stipulated that the Petitioner would earn 4-8% profit on the sale of the goods procured from the Respondent.

iii. It is stated that during the period from March 2003 to 24.09.2003, that is, before the Petitioner had entered into the Agreement, the Respondent called upon the Petitioner to increase its investment to Rs. 30 lakhs, being the price of 45 day’s stock, on the basis of projected sales of Rs. 20 lakhs per month. It is further stated that the Petitioner made such an investment on the clear representation made by the Respondent that it would ensure sales of Rs. 20 lakhs per month in the event the Petitioner invests the said amount.

iv. The Respondent vide letter dated 20.10.2003 requested the Petitioner to increase its investment by a further Rs. 10 lakhs to enable the Respondent to meet its plans and targets.

v. The Respondent sent a letter dated 15.12.2003 to the Petitioner recording its satisfaction with the work of the Petitioner. The said letter further conveyed that the Respondent was planning to increase the market size of the Petitioner and for that, the Petitioner was