[2026:RJ-JP:6425-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5329/2025 Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., 4Th Floor, Nehru Sahkar Bhawan, B.s. Road, Jaipur-302006.

----Appellant Versus M/s Premier Alcobev Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Registered Office At F- 33/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi 110020 Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ashu Malik S/o Sh. Mahendra Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Presently R/o H.no. C- 196, Chandavardai Nagar, Taragarh Road, Ajmer, Permanent R/o Geeta Bhawan, Gandhi Road, Rajddoot Agency Wali Gali, Shakti Nagar, Chandausi, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh-202412.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlendra Singh Rathore with Mr. Kamlendra Sihag HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

11/02/2026

1. Heard.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Commercial Court dated 11.09.2025, whereby the objections raised by the appellant in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’), were rejected and the award was upheld.

3. Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Commercial Court as well as learned Arbitrator have failed to take into consideration the reasons, which were taken into consideration by the appellant for deducting the amount of Rs.38,23,200/-, from the security deposit. It is submitted that there was a palpable and deliberate delay in installment and learned Arbitrator has erred in holding that there was no delay on the part of the claimant.

4. The question whether there has been a delay or not, is a pure question of fact. Learned Arbitrator, after considering the statement and the documents which had come on record, reached to the conclusion that the delay in getting the requisite licenses, cannot be held to be on the claimant’s accounts.

5. Such a finding arrived at, cannot be a ground to interfere in terms of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, which provides as under:

“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award-(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-

section (2) and sub-section (3).

(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if-

(a) the party making the application [establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that]- (i) a party was under some incapacity, or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:

Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or (b) the Court finds that--

(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.

[Explanation 1.-For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy o