IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 14 of 2009 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

Versus M/S R HARANADHA REDDY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WITH ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 15 of 2009 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD GOVERNMENT OF INDIAENTERPRISE Versus M/S SINGHAL ENTERPRISES HAVINGITSOFFI.

Appearance:

Shri Ravish Chandra Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Jaspreet Gulati -

Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Anshuman Singh, Shri S. Rao and Shri Aditya Awashty - Advocates for the respondent ORDER (Reserved on : 01.12.2025)

(Pronounced on : 20.01.2026)

Both these appeals are filed on identical grounds and involve similar questions, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from AA No.14/2009.

2. By way of this appeal, challenge is made to the order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Katni in Civil Miscellaneous Judicature Case No.7/2008 filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whereby the award passed by the arbitrator dated 13.12.2006 was put to challenge, whereby the arbitrator award an amount of Rs.1,54,50,330/- against the present appellant, Steel Authority of India Limited.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a singular ground that the award was passed by the arbitrator whereby the arbitrator had decided as many as 28 claims of the claimant contractor and the counterclaim had been filed by the appellant SAIL in which as many as 9 claims were made, and the arbitrator had dealt with all the 28 claims of the contractor and 9 claims of SAIL and had passed an award. However, the District Court while deciding the application under Section 34 of Act of 1996 has simply summed up the entire case in only 2 paragraphs and has simply held that nothing has been placed on record that how the award is contrary to the public policy of India and this is the only consideration made in 2 paragraphs of the impugned order passed by the District Court under Section 34 of Act of 1996. It is argued that after reproducing the arguments of the rival parties and the judgments cited by the rival parties, the consideration has been made from Paragraph 9 onwards and the order ends at Paragraph 13.Paragraphs 9 to 13 are in a single page and the entire consideration is made in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order passed by the District Court, which does not consider any of the claims of the rival parties, which were 37 in number. Only in 2 paragraphs which are generalized in nature, stating that nothing has been placed on record that how the award is contrary to public policy of India, that the application under Section 34 has been rejected, which does not amount to a decision of the application, but it amounts to scuttling of the application. The District Court was under obligation to consider the grounds raised by the present appellant though maybe in brief, but some consideration had to be made to the grounds raised by the present appellant that how the said grounds did not fall within the purview of the award not being in conflict with the public policy of India, or any of the grounds as laid down in Section 34.

4. It is argued that the a number of grounds were raised by the present appellant in the memorandum of application under Section 34 of Act of 1996, but without adverting to the said grounds, the application has been scuttled in only 2 paragraphs, which cannot be said to be a speaking order. It is argued that maybe the grounds raised by the present appellant may or may not have been substantial grounds to justify setting aside of the award under Section 34 of Act of 1996, but the District Court at least was required to do their minimum of considering such grounds and then to arrive at finding that how and in what manner the grounds being raised by the present appellant do not fall within the purview of the grounds as permissible under Section 34 of Act of 1996. Therefore, it is prayed that