ORDER

Ms.V.Valarmathi, learned counsel on record for petitioners is before this Court.

2. PREFATORY NOTE:

2(i) Instant 'Original Petition' ('OP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed under Section 34(2A) of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' (Act No.26 of 1996)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity. To be noted, caption in case file reads Section 34(2A), but it figures as 34(2-A) in the statute. Be that as it may, instant OP has been filed assailing an arbitral award dated 19.06.2019 made by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by a sole Arbitrator qua a 'loan agreement dated 31.12.2014 under Contract No.J012900737' (hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience). One covenant in said contract i.e., Article 22 is an arbitration clause and therefore, the same serves as an 'arbitration agreement' between the parties being 'arbitration agreement' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act between the parties.

2(ii) Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of A and C Act, going by the language in which Section 34 of A and C Act is couched, is by way of an application, but this Court is giving the nomenclature 'Original Petition' for such applications under Section 34 of A and C Act. Therefore, this Court will continue to refer to instant matter as 'OP'. A OP under Section 34 of A and C Act is neither an appeal nor a revision. It is not even a full-fledged judicial review, but it is a limited judicial review within the contours and confines of Section 34 of A and C Act. By contours and confines of Section 34 of A and C Act, this Court refers to the 8 designated slots adumbrated in Section 34 of A and C Act. To be noted, 5 slots are adumbrated under Section 34(2)(a), two slots are adumbrated under Section 34(2)(b) and one slot figures under Section 34(2-A). This Court chooses to deploy the term 'slots' in preference to 'grounds' as instant OP is neither an appeal nor a revision and it is not even a full-fledged judicial review as mentioned above.. To put it differently, it is a mere challenge to an award. When it comes to 'challenge to an award', the principle is, if a petitioner/applicant is able to fit his case into any one or more of the eight slots snugly, the award will be dislodged or in other words set aside. If that not be so, the award will not be interfered with. This is owing to 'minimum judicial interference' in 'Alternate Dispute Resolution' ('ADR') mechanism, which is an important sublime philosophy and salutary principle qua scheme of A and C Act. In this context, this Court chooses to describe the eight slots adumbrated in Section 34 as eight pigeon holes. To be noted, some of these pigeon holes are even in the nature of keyholes and pinholes, as some of these slots have been further circumscribed by limitations. An illustrative list is a) not entailing review on merits, b) making re- appreciation of evidence impermissible and c) eliminating even erroneous application of law from patent illegality slot etc.,.

3. Having set out the scope and ambit of instant OP under Section

34 of A and C Act and having noticed that minimum judicial interference is one of the important pillars of ADR mechanism, expeditious disposal of OPs under Section 34 is also a very important facet of the matter. This facet of the matter finds statutory expression in sub-section (6) of Section 34 of A and C Act, which mandates that such OPs shall be disposed of expeditiously and in any event within a period of one year from the date on which notice under sub-section (5) is served on the party concerned. This sub-section (6) and importance of disposing of OPs of instant nature as expeditiously as possible and within the one year time line was emphasised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti reported in (2018) 9 SCC 472. To be noted, though Bhumi Vikas case law is an authority for the broad