Karnataka High Court
Babu Reddy vs The Commissioner on 25 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.89 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
BABU REDDY
S/O DODDA MUNINAGA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.27
KACHARAKANA HALLI
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST
BENGALURU - 560 084 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJAY G, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHUT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMU .S, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT R/W SECTION 13(1)(A)
OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDERS DATED 13/12/2021 PASSED IN COM.A.S.NO. 185/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-83) AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE
THE ARBITRAL AWARD DATED 07/03/2017 PASSED IN A.C.NO.
13/2016 BY THE LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR TO THE EXTENT
OF THE CLAIM DENIED TO THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ .J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
JUDGMENT
1. The above appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru dated 13.12.2021 in Com.A.S.No.185/2017. The said Com.A.S.No.185/2017 had been filed challenging the arbitral award passed by learned Sole Arbitrator in A.C.No.13/2016.
2. The appellant herein was the claimant before the learned Sole Arbitrator. The learned Sole Arbitrator has partially allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant. It is aggrieved by certain claims not being allowed that Com.A.S.No.185/2017 had been filed by the appellant before the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'A & C Act').
3. The grievance of the appellant as could be seen from the appeal memo is that the learned Sole Arbitrator had committed an error in not considering certain invoices and bills while calculating the total mileage covered by each one of the vehicles on a daily basis. If the said mileage had been properly calculated, the -3- appellant would have been entitled to a higher amount.
4. The second ground raised is that the learned Sole Arbitrator has committed an error in drawing adverse interference that the claimant not having disputed the log books maintained by the respondent, the said log books would have to be taken as correct and proper.
5. Thirdly, it is contended that escalation has not been granted in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the contract being a commercial contract, escalation ought to have been granted.
6. The fourth ground is that the variations as regards ESI and PF have not been taken into account by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
7. The fifth ground is that the Bata charges have not been taken into consideration.
8. The sixth ground is that interest has not been awarded in respect of the claim prior to the same being made.
-4-
9. These being the grounds to challenge the Arbitral Award dated 07.03.2017, it is contended that the Commercial Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the said Act, ought to have appreciated the above contentions and set aside the award and should have allowed the portion of the claim petition which had not been allowed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
10. There is a very limited jurisdiction under the A & C Act both under Section 34 and under Section 37 in respect of a challenge to an Arbitral award for interference either by the Section 34 Court or the Section 37 Court.
11. The ground being circumscribed and contained under Section 34 of the A & C Act, neither the Section 34 Court can act as the First Appellate Court nor the Section 37 Court can act as the Second Appellate Court and interfere in respect of an arbitral award passed.
12. The grounds which have been raised by the appellant before the Section 34 Court which are reproduced hereinabove are mainly relating to the appreciation of -5- evidence which is not a ground which is available under Section 34 of the Act nor can the Section 34 Court, as observed above, appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence which is on record. The only grounds which are available are those which are circumscribed under Section 34 of the said Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of "Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority" reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49.
13. The grounds which are relevant to challenge the arbitral award is that the award should be patently illegal and contrary to the public policy as per Section 34(2) of the said Act. Neither before the Commercial Court nor before this Court, the appellant has been able to establish any patent illegality except to contend that factual aspects have not been taken into consideration by the learned Sole Arbitrator. The manner in which the allegations have been made against the Arbitrator also needs to be deprecated.
14. The appellant not being able to make out any ground either before the Section 34 Court or before this Court, we find that there is no error or infirmity in the -6- award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator or the Section 34 Court. The order passed in Com.A.S.No.185/2017 is proper and correct and does not require any interference.
15. The appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE VM