The appeal against an arbitral award is limited to specific statutory grounds; dissatisfaction with outcomes does not justify setting aside unless misconduct or invalidity is proven.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI CHIRANIA, J.

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.03.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhalawar, whereby the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the arbitral award dated 13.06.1994 was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of disputes arising out of the contract between the parties. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 01.10.1993, appointed Shri Prabhakar Sharma, Retired Chief Engineer (Irrigation), as Arbitrator and directed him to pass an award within four months.

3. The learned Arbitrator, after issuing notices and affording opportunities to the parties, passed an ex-parte award on 13.06.1994 in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the appellants filed applications under Sections 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the said ex-parte award, which were registered as Civil Misc. Applications No. 2/94 and 16/94.

4. The learned trial Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions of the parties, rejected the objections raised by the appellants and made the award rule of the Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2004.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the award was passed without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, as notices were not properly served upon all the appellants, and further the learned Arbitrator acted in a biased manner.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order dated 24.03.2004 and submitted that repeated opportunities were granted to the appellants, who deliberately avoided to participate in the arbitral proceedings and no ground under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was made out before the learned Court below for setting aside the award dated 13.06.1994.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. At the outset, it is relevant to note that though the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has come into force, the present proceedings arise out of arbitral proceedings and court actions initiated prior to the enforcement of the 1996 Act. In view of Section 85(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, such proceedings are saved and continue to be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

9. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, it is necessary to examine the statutory scope of this appeal. Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 provides a limited right to appeal, only against the specific orders enumerated therein. The provision does not contemplate a re-appreciation of evidence or a re- examination of the merit of the arbitral award. Section 39 of Arbitration Act of 1940 is reproduce herein under:

“39. Appealable orders -(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order:-

An order-

(i) superseding an arbitration;

(ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;

(iii) modifying or correcting an award;

(iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;

(v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;

(vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award:

Provided that the provisions of this section shall