IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

112+233 FAO-5992-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision : 06.02.2025 Sanjay Gupta .....Appellant VERSUS Ashwani Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocate (through VC)

for the respondents.

*****

LAPITA BANERJI , J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1996 Act’). Under challenge is the impugned judgment and order dated July 20, 2023, passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, in an application filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the arbitration agreement is forged and fabricated and no reliance can be placed thereupon. He submits that there was a previous award passed on May 18, 2001, by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of five members. Challenging the award, an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was filed by the appellant herein. The learned Court, after hearing the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, dismissed the same. Challenging the order dated March 4, 2003, a civil revision was filed. The said civil revision was dismissed. Thereafter, a review petition was filed, which was finally converted into FAO-8431-2015.

3. By an order dated February 11, 2016, a Coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the award passed in year 2001, since the same was not signed by all the Arbitrators. Since the parties were ad idem that the matter be referred to an independent Arbitrator, the Coordinate Bench appointed an independent Arbitrator, who adjudicated the disputes between the parties.

4. The parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the Sole Arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings culminated into the award dated September 26, 2017. The said award was challenged before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, in Arbitration Case No.1042 dated 11.12.2017. Vide judgment and order dated July 20, 2023, the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissed the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, being devoid of any merit. Challenging the impugned judgment dated July 20, 2023, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that there was no appreciation of evidence by the learned Arbitrator and he failed to take into consideration Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 79 of Bhartiya Sakshya Abhiyan, 2023 (for short ‘BSA’). It is urged that there was no contract between the parties and therefore, the findings of the learned Arbitrator were perverse. Attention of this Court is drawn to the decision in Associate Builders versus Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49. It is submitted that when the Arbitral Tribunal takes into consideration something irrelevant to the decision arrived at, then such decision suffers from perversity and the award should be set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that no objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal was taken by the appellant herein (respondent in the arbitration proceedings). Furthermore, no reappreciation of evidence can be done by a Court adjudicating an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The learned Arbitrator after appreciating the evidence came to the finding that some bags of potatoes were stored in the cold storage of the appellant and the same was reflected from the books of entries maintained by the appellant. Furthermore, the amount i.e. due and payable by the claimant to the appellant could be evidenced from the said books of entries. He further submits that the argument regarding the applicability of Section 18 is misplaced as the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the report of the Handwriting Expert, dated January 20, 2013, regarding the signatures on the arbitration agreement bei