FAO No.219/2017 Page 1 of 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO No. 219/2017

%

15^th May, 2017

RAJESH KHANNA

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Mahendra Rana, Advocate.

versus

SACHIN GOEL

..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.18284/2017 (exemption)

1.

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No.18286/2017 (for condonation of delay)

2.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of two days

in filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

FAO No.219/2017 and C.M. No.18285/2017 (stay)

3.

By this first appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration &

Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) the

appellant and who was the petitioner in the court below who had filed

2017:DHC:2580

FAO No.219/2017 Page 2 of 5

objections under Section 34 of the Act, impugns the judgment dated

21.1.2017 by which the objections under Section 34 of the Act have

been dismissed.

4.

The facts of the case are that the respondent/claimant filed

an arbitration claim before the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile

Association on account of having supplied goods/textiles to the

appellant. The appellant was admittedly served in the arbitration

proceedings. Appellant appeared and filed his written statement.

Appellant continued to appear thereafter in the arbitration proceedings

till the stage of cross-examination of the witness of the respondent and

who was partly cross-examined. The appellant for some reason

thereafter failed to appear and consequently the arbitration tribunal

after examining the evidence on record, alongwith the deposition of the

respondent which proved the invoices, delivery challans and the

transportation receipts, allowed the claim petition and passed the

Award dated 4.9.2015.

5.

Once the appellant does not appear in the arbitration

proceedings and the arbitration claim is allowed by an Award,

inasmuch as there is no evidence of the appellant herein in the

arbitration proceedings and there is no complete cross-examination of

the deposition of the witness of the respondent/claimant, thus in such

2017:DHC:2580

FAO No.219/2017 Page 3 of 5

circumstances the Arbitrator was justified in believing the claim of the

respondent and consequently passing the Award dated 4.9.2015. The

Award has been passed for a sum of Rs.17,83,530/- alongwith interest

at 15% per annum from 1.3.2009.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued on merits that

goods were not received by the appellant and an endeavour was made

to that this Court should pursue various documents for showing that the

appellant had not received goods, however, this Court is not the

Arbitrator before whom the evidence had to be led by the appellant to

show that he had not received goods including by completely cross-

examining the deposition of the witness of the respondent, and which

was not done. I therefore cannot agree that the Award is not correct on

merits as the scope of a Court under Section 34 of the Act is not to sit

as an appellate court over the award.

7.

It is also argued on behalf of the appellant that there is no

arbitration clause, however, it is seen that on each of the bills there is

an arbitration clause to refer the disputes to arbitration and the court

below has thus accordingly rejected this contention by making the

following valid observations:-

“The first submission of the petitioner herein is that there was no arbitration

agreement in between the parties to the present petition. It has to be seen

that various invoices/bill