Delhi District Court
M/S A2Z Infrastructure Ltd vs Ashok Kumar Jain on 17 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
Arbt. No. 163/2018
CNR No:- DLCT01-001960-2018
M/s A2Z Green Waste Management Ltd.,
(Formally Known as M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd),
Through its Authorized Representative
Having its Registered Office At:-
G-41, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 .......Petitioner
Vs.
Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain
Proprietor of:-
M/s Paragon Trading Corporation,
Having its office at:-
G-44, Sector-6,
Gautam Budh Nagar,
Noida-201301(U.P) .......Respondent
Date of Institution:- 12.02.2018
Date of conclusion of
final arguments:- 22.11.2024
Date of Judgment:- 17.02.2025
Arbt No. 163/2018
M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain
Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 1 of 32
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner against the respondent challenging the award dated 09.11.2017 passed by Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, Ld. Sole Arbitrator in Case Ref. No. DAC/1025/09-15 titled as 'Ashok Kumar Jain V/s M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.' (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned award").
2. Petitioner [M/s A2Z Green Waste Management Ltd. (Formally as M2Z Infrastructure Ltd.)] herein was the respondent No. 1 and the respondent (Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain) herein was the petitioner before the Ld. Arbitrator. Sh. Amit Mittal and Sh. D. P. Aggarwal being the chairman and director respectively of the petitioner company were made respondent No. 2 and 3 respectively in the arbitration proceedings, however, (they) are not party before this Court. Parties are referred to by this Court in this judgment as per their status/ nomenclature given in the present petition before this Court. Meaning thereby, M/s A2Z Green Waste Management Ltd. (Formally as M2Z Infrastructure Ltd.) is referred as petitioner and Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain as respondent.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED ARBITRATOR
3. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the respondent in statement of claim (before the Ld. Arbitrator), in brief, are as under:-
(a) That the respondent is the proprietor of M/s Paragon Trading Corporation, a proprietorship firm, having its registered office at 1898, Kucha Chelan, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 and is the manufacturer and supplier of different types of electrical Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 2 of 32 industrial heating elements, appliances, equipments and other items relating thereto.
(b) That the petitioner is a group of companies having its allied and sister concern/ companies like A2Z Waste Management (Aligarh) Limited, A2Z Waste Management (Indore) Ltd.
etcetera. Sh. Amit Mittal and Sh. D. P. Aggarwal are the chairman and director respectively of the petitioner company (Sh. Amit Mittal and Sh. D. P. Aggarwal are made respondent No. 2 and 3 respectively in the arbitration proceedings, however not party before this Court).
(c) That the petitioner was having business relations with the respondent and used to place purchase orders with him from time to time for supply of different types of goods. Supply of goods was being made to the petitioner at different places as directed by the officers of the petitioner on the basis of proforma invoices. Supplied goods were duly received and appropriated by the petitioner to its satisfaction from time to time on cash as well as credit basis against proper bills.
(d) That the entire transaction on the part of respondent had always been satisfactory and no type of complaint regarding supply, service or manufacturing problem was ever received from the side of the petitioner.
(e) That the payments in respect of supply of goods were always received from the petitioner only, irrespective of the fact that billing of the supply of the goods had been done in the name of any sister concern or allied company of the petitioner.
Arbt No. 163/2018M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 3 of 32
(f) That the respondent, in the regular course of business, was maintaining an open and running account in his books of account in respect of the petitioner, as per which, a sum of Rs. 5,34,524.80/- was due and outstanding against the petitioner.
(g) That the respondent approached the petitioner a number of times for payment of the amount due but the petitioner avoided payment on one pretext or other. However, the petitioner executed a balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013 admitting that a sum of Rs. 5,34,524.00/- was due and payable by them to the respondent.
(h) As the petitioner had failed to pay the amount due despite correspondence and personal requests, the respondent served the petitioner with a legal notice dated 16.08.2013. The petitioner did not comply with the notice, rather sent a reply. The respondent was thus constrained to file a Civil Suit bearing CS No. 474/13 wherein the Ld. ADJ, in view of an arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties, directed the parties to go for arbitration.
(i) The respondent, therefore, approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator. Hon'ble High Court in the said petition (ARB. P. 449/2015) appointed Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, retired District and Sessions Judge as the sole arbitrator. The Hon'ble High Court further directed that the arbitration shall be conducted under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre ('DAC').
Arbt No. 163/2018M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 4 of 32
(j) The respondent thus filed a statement of claim re-iterating the same fact as pleaded before the Ld. ADJ in CS No. 474/13. The respondent set up a claim for Rs. 5,34,524.80/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 02.05.2012 till the date of realisation.
4. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner, Sh. Amit Mittal and Sh. D. P. Aggarwal (Sh. Amit Mittal and Sh. D. P. Aggarwal, being the chairman and director respectively of the petitioner company, arrayed as respondent No. 2 and 3) through an Authorised Representative Sh. Ankur Gupta. In the written statement, it is inter alia pleaded that the respondent had not approached with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts; that the true facts are that the respondent wanted to have business relations with the petitioner to use its name to show to the business community that he is associated with a company which has tremendous reputation and goodwill in the market; that by misrepresenting about his capability for supply of different types of goods manufactured by him, the respondent got the purchase order and received maximum advance payment from the petitioner from time to time (whereas the respondent was neither having any capability nor having any resource to execute such a big purchase order); that the materials supplied by the respondent were below standard and there were inherent deficiencies in the same (for which the petitioner had been complaining about to the respondent and on every occasion he falsely assured that he will rectify the same and supply the material as promised with a request not to terminate the purchase order); that the petitioner suffered huge financial loss because of deficiency in supply, service and manufacturing of material supplied by the respondent (as the petitioner had to purchase extra material from other agencies on higher rates); that besides the financial losses, the petitioner Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 5 of 32 suffered on account of reputation, mental & physical harassment as well, for which the respondent is liable to compensate the petitioner; that in order to cover his own wrongs and to pre-empt the future claims by the petitioner, the respondent sent a baseless demand notice dated 16.08.2013 which was duly replied by the petitioner vide a reply dated 02.09.2013; that payment was to be made to the respondent when the material sent by him was tested and (it) met with the quality criteria, and since the respondent failed to meet with the quality criteria (causing breach of purchase order), the petitioner was not liable to make any payment; that no amount was due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent and the balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013 was a forged and fabricated document; and with these submissions it was prayed that the claim set up by the respondent be dismissed with costs.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Ld. Arbitrator vide order dated 17.09.2016:-
1. Whether the goods supplied by the claimant to the Respondent were below standard and suffered from inherent deficiencies. If so, to what effect ? OPR
2. Whether the Respondent had executed the balance confirmation amounting to Rs. 5,34,524.00 ? OPC
3. Whether the claimant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5,34,524.80 from the respondent ? OPC
4. Whether the claimant is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate, for what period and on what amount ? OPC
5. Relief.
6. In order to substantiate his case, the respondent examined two witnesses. Respondent examined himself as CW1. Another witness Sh. K. Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 6 of 32 K. Sharma, Sales Manager of the respondent, was examined as CW2. On behalf of the petitioner, Sh. Rohit Chauhan, AGM (Operations) was examined as RW1.
FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED ARBITRATOR
7. After hearing arguments on behalf of both the sides and upon appreciation of evidence led on their behalf, Ld. Arbitrator while deciding the issue No. 1 against the petitioner herein (respondent No. 1 before the Ld. Arbitrator) and issues No. 2 & 3 in favour of the respondent herein (petitioner/ claimant before the Ld. Arbitrator), vide award dated 09.11.2017 passed an award in favor of the respondent herein (petitioner/ claimant before the Ld. Arbitrator) and against the petitioner herein (respondent No. 1 before the Ld. Arbitrator) for a sum of Rs. 5,34,524.80/-
along with interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 02.05.2012 till the date of the award. The Ld. Arbitrator further granted future interest on the Awarded amount @ 18% per annum till the date of realisation. The Ld. Arbitrator also awarded Costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) to the respondent herein (petitioner/ claimant before the Ld. Arbitrator). Findings of the Ld. Arbitrator may be summarised as follows:-
(a) The petitioner has failed to place on record any documentary evidence showing that the goods supplied to it were defective. The petitioner has further failed to place on record any documentary evidence to prove that it had purchased extra material from other agencies, that too, on higher rates. The petitioner has failed to place on record any correspondence made to the respondent complaining about the alleged defective supply of materials.
(b). The petitioner had alleged that the payment of the goods was agreed to be released only after goods were tested and found up to the Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 7 of 32 mark. No test report has been placed on record to prove that the goods were defective.
(c) DW1 is silent as to how did the petitioner discover that the goods supplied were defective. DW1 in his cross-examination has deposed that the petitioner used to be in continuous touch with Sh. K. K. Sharma, Sales Manager of the respondent and used to bring to his notice the defects in the goods, however, no such suggestion was given by the petitioner to Sh. K. K. Sharma when examined as CW2.
(d) As such, except for a bald statement that the supply was defective, there is nothing on record to prove the same. The petitioner has failed to prove on record its plea of defective supply of materials by the respondent.
(e) In order to prove the execution of the balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013, Ex.CW1/3, the respondent has examined his Sales Manager, Sh. K. K. Sharma as CW2. CW2 during his cross-
examination maintained that CW1/3 was executed in his presence and that the same was signed by Sh. Rajinder Singh, an employee of the petitioner in his presence. The fact that Sh. Rajinder Singh was dealing with the petitioner, has been admitted by the Sh. Rohit Chauhan, witness examined by the petitioner as RW1.
(f) In order to prove its defence that the balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013, Ex.CW1/3 was not executed by Sh. Rajinder Singh, it was imperative on the part of the petitioner to have examined Sh. Rajinder Singh as a witness (who could only have denied its execution). The petitioner has failed to examine said Sh. Rajinder Singh and have come up with an explanation that the said Sh. Rajinder Singh has resigned and is no longer working with them. Even if, it is Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 8 of 32 assumed that Sh. Rajinder Singh had resigned and is not in employment of the petitioner, nothing prevented it from examining the said person in order to establish the truth or otherwise of document Ex.CW1/3. After all, it is not the case of the petitioner that Sh. Rajinder Singh is not available for his testimony.
(g) The petitioner has not taken a firm stand about the execution of the balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013, Ex.CW1/3. When the respondent Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain was under cross-examination as CW1, it was suggested to him that Ex.CW1/3 was a forged document and did not contain the signatures of Sh. Rajinder Singh. However, in the same breath, it was suggested to the CW1 that Sh. Rajinder Singh was not authorised to sign the confirmation letter on behalf of the petitioner thereby suggesting that the letter was actually signed by Sh. Rajinder Singh. Apparently, the two stands are contradictory.
(h) Even otherwise there is ample evidence on record to prove that Ex.CW1/3 was executed on behalf of the petitioner during the course of business. The respondent has placed on record emails dated 25.03.2013 exchanged between the parties on the subject of balance confirmation. The first e-mail is dated 25.03.2013 at 11.07 AM addressed by the respondent to Sh. Manohar Vasudev, Sr. GM Purchase of the petitioner. The second e-mail is dated 25.03.2013 at 11.10 AM (after 3 minutes), written by Sh. Manohar Vasudev, Sr. GM purchase (in response to the first e-mail). A perusal of e-mails exchanged between the respondent and Sh. Manohar Vasudev, Sr. GM shows that Sh. Manohar Vasudev had asked the respondent to approach the finance and accounts department of the petitioner and had endorsed a copy of this e-mail to Sh. Rajinder Singh. It is Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 9 of 32 therefore clear that the balance confirmation Ex.CW1/3 was executed by Sh. Rajinder Singh after he had been directed to do so by the e- mail dated 25.03.2013 of Sh. Manohar Vasudev, the Senior GM of the petitioner.
(i) The respondent has been able to prove the liability of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 5,34,524.80/- by way of testimony of CW-1 in the form of affidavit Ex.CW1/A which is duly corroborated by the documents Ex CW1/1 to Ex CW1/8 tendered by CW-1 in his evidence. CW2 further corroborated the case of the respondent by way of testimony of CW-2 in the form of affidavit Ex.CW2/A.
(j) The respondent is entitled to interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of Rs. 5,34,524.80 from the petitioner herein (respondent No. before the Ld. Arbitrator).
(k) Respondent is also entitled to future interest on the awarded amount @ 18% per annum till the date of realisation. The cost of the proceedings is quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) which is awarded to the respondent.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
8. The aforesaid award has been challenged by the petitioner herein/ respondent No. 1 before the Ld. Arbitrator in the present petition inter alia on the following grounds :-
(A) The Ld. Arbitrator failed to appreciate that there is no privity of contract between the parties. It is a settled principle that liability of one company can not be fastened upon another company, even if it is a group company.
(B) The Ld. Arbitrator has wrongly put the onus to prove the confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013; Ex.CW1/3 on the petitioner Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 10 of 32 instead of the respondent, which clearly shows that the Ld. Arbitrator was biased against the petitioner. The difference in handwriting and fraud was apparent on the face of record.
(C) The Ld. Arbitrator failed to appreciate that the respondent had not accounted for the payment received against the invoice Nos. 141 and 184 (admitted by the CW1 in his cross-examination) in the statement of account filed by the respondent. As such the statement of account filed by the respondent is a false and fabricated document.
(D) That the impugned award is liable to be set aside as it is against the public policy of India/ fundamental policy of Indian Law as the Ld. Arbitrator has awarded interest @ 24% per annum, which is too excessive, exorbitant, arbitrary and in violation of the mandate of Section 31 (7) (a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
REPLY
9. Reply was filed on behalf of the respondent. Respondent in his reply, supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of present objection petitions with costs stating that it is devoid of merit.
ARGUMENTS
10. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of the parties and in the meantime, original arbitration proceedings were also received from the Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
11. Ld. counsel for the petitioner during arguments challenged the award passed by the Ld. Arbitrator on the grounds referred above and prayed for its setting aside. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Ld. Arbitrator has rightly passed the award after properly appreciating the evidence on record. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that even otherwise the scope of interference by this Court under Section Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 11 of 32 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is very limited and the facts of the present case do not warrant any interference by this Court. With these submissions it was prayed that the present petition should be dismissed by this Court.
12. The written arguments have been filed by the respective Ld. Counsels for the petitioner and the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. V/s Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and Others; (1994) 1 SCC 1. Ld. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relied on following judgments;
(i) Union of India V/s Susaka Pvt. Ltd. & Ors,; (2018) 2 SCC 182
(ii) Arjun Mall Retails Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V/s Gunocen Inc.; 2024 SCC OnLine Del 428
(iii) Project Director National Highway Authority of India V/s M. Hakeem & Anr.; (2021) 9 SCC 1
(iv) Delhi Development Authority V/s M/s Bhardwaj Brothers; AIR 2014 Del 147
(v) Ircon International Ltd. V/s Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2350.
13. This Court has considered the submissions and material on record.
REASONING
14. Before coming to the facts of the case and examining the rival contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to principles relating to the Scope of powers of the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as settled by the judicial decisions.
(A) Scope And Ambit of A Challenge Under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 12 of 32
15. The issue regarding Scope of powers of the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is no longer res integra in view of authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Airport Metro Export Pvt. Ltd Vs. DMRC (2022) 1 SCC 131 and in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited Vs. NHAI (2019) 15 SCC 131.
16. Relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Airport Metro Export Pvt. Ltd Vs. DMRC (2022) 1 SCC 131 are being reproduced hereinunder for ready reference:-
"26. A cumulative reading of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Rules, the legislative intent with which the 1996 Act is made, Section 5 and Section 34 of the 1996 Act would make it clear that judicial interference with the arbitral awards is limited to the grounds in Section 34. While deciding applications filed under Section 34 of the Act, Courts are mandated to strictly act in accordance with and within the confines of Section 34, refraining from appreciation or reappreciation of matters of fact as well as law. (See Uttarakhand Purv SainikKalyan Nigam Ltd. v. Northern Coal Field Ltd. [Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v. Northern Coal Field Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 455 :
(2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 570] , Bhaven Construction v. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. [Bhaven Construction v. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 75] and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran [Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran, (2012) 5 SCC 306] .)
27. For a better understanding of the role ascribed to Courts in reviewing arbitral awards while considering applications filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment of this Court in Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co.Arbt No. 163/2018
M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 13 of 32 Ltd. v. NHAI [Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 213] wherein R.F. Nariman, J. has in clear terms delineated the limited area for judicial interference, taking into account the amendments brought about by the 2015 Amendment Act. The relevant passages of the judgment in Ssangyong [Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 213] are noted as under : (SCC pp. 169-71, paras 34-41) "34. What is clear, therefore, is that the expression "public policy of India", whether contained in Section 34 or in Section 48, would now mean the "fundamental policy of Indian law" as explained in paras 18 and 27 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 :
(2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] i.e. the fundamental policy of Indian law would be relegated to "Renusagar"
understanding of this expression. This would necessarily mean that Western Geco [ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12] expansion has been done away with. In short, Western Geco [ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12] , as explained in paras 28 and 29 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , would no longer obtain, as under the guise of interfering with an award on the ground that the arbitrator has not adopted a judicial approach, the Court's intervention would be on the merits of the award, which cannot be permitted post amendment. However, insofar as principles of natural justice are concerned, as contained in Sections 18 and 34(2)
(a)(iii) of the 1996 Act, these continue to be grounds of Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 14 of 32 challenge of an award, as is contained in para 30 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] .
35. It is important to notice that the ground for interference insofar as it concerns "interest of India" has since been deleted, and therefore, no longer obtains. Equally, the ground for interference on the basis that the award is in conflict with justice or morality is now to be understood as a conflict with the "most basic notions of morality or justice". This again would be in line with paras 36 to 39 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , as it is only such arbitral awards that shock the conscience of the court that can be set aside on this ground.
36. Thus, it is clear that public policy of India is now constricted to mean firstly, that a domestic award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, as understood in paras 18 and 27 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , or secondly, that such award is against basic notions of justice or morality as understood in paras 36 to 39 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] . Explanation 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Explanation 2 to Section 48(2)
(b)(ii) was added by the Amendment Act only so that Western Geco [ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12] , as understood in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , and paras 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with.
Arbt No. 163/2018M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 15 of 32
37. Insofar as domestic awards made in India are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2-A), added by the Amendment Act, 2015, to Section 34. Here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount to mere erroneous application of the law. In short, what is not subsumed within "the fundamental policy of Indian law", namely, the contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest, cannot be brought in by the backdoor when it comes to setting aside an award on the ground of patent illegality.
38. Secondly, it is also made clear that reappreciation of evidence, which is what an appellate court is permitted to do, cannot be permitted under the ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.
39. To elucidate, para 42.1 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204], namely, a mere contravention of the substantive law of India, by itself, is no longer a ground available to set aside an arbitral award. Para 42.2 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , however, would remain, for if an arbitrator gives no reasons for an award and contravenes Section 31(3) of the 1996 Act, that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face of the award.
40. The change made in Section 28(3) by the Amendment Act really follows what is stated in paras 42.3 to 45 in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 16 of 32 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , namely, that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in short, that the arbitrator's view is not even a possible view to take. Also, if the arbitrator wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits an error of jurisdiction. This ground of challenge will now fall within the new ground added under Section 34(2-A).
41. What is important to note is that a decision which is perverse, as understood in paras 31 and 32 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 :
(2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , while no longer being a ground for challenge under "public policy of India", would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality. Additionally, a finding based on documents taken behind the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse."
28. This Court has in several other judgments interpreted Section 34 of the 1996 Act to stress on the restraint to be shown by Courts while examining the validity of the arbitral awards. The limited grounds available to Courts for annulment of arbitral awards are well known to legally trained minds. However, the Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 17 of 32 difficulty arises in applying the well-established principles for interference to the facts of each case that come up before the Courts. There is a disturbing tendency of Courts setting aside arbitral awards, after dissecting and reassessing factual aspects of the cases to come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention and thereafter, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award. This approach would lead to corrosion of the object of the 1996 Act and the endeavors made to preserve this object, which is minimal judicial interference with arbitral awards. That apart, several judicial pronouncements of this Court would become a dead letter if arbitral awards are set aside by categorizing them as perverse or patently illegal without appreciating the contours of the said expressions.
29. Patent illegality should be illegality which goes to the root of the matter. In other words, every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression "patent illegality". Likewise, erroneous application of law cannot be categorized as patent illegality. In addition, contravention of law not linked to public policy or public interest is beyond the scope of the expression "patent illegality". What is prohibited is for Courts to re-appreciate evidence to conclude that the award suffers from patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, as Courts do not sit in appeal against the arbitral award. The permissible grounds for interference with a domestic award under Section 34(2-A) on the ground of patent illegality is when the arbitrator takes a view which is not even a possible one, or interprets a clause in the contract in such a manner which no fair- minded or reasonable person would, or if the arbitrator commits Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 18 of 32 an error of jurisdiction by wandering outside the contract and dealing with matters not allotted to them. An arbitral award stating no reasons for its findings would make itself susceptible to challenge on this account. The conclusions of the arbitrator which are based on no evidence or have been arrived at by ignoring vital evidence are perverse and can be set aside on the ground of patent illegality. Also, consideration of documents which are not supplied to the other party is a facet of perversity falling within the expression "patent illegality".
30. Section 34(2)(b) refers to the other grounds on which a court can set aside an arbitral award. If a dispute which is not capable of settlement by arbitration is the subject-matter of the award or if the award is in conflict with public policy of India, the award is liable to be set aside. Explanation (1), amended by the 2015 Amendment Act, clarified the expression "public policy of India"
and its connotations for the purposes of reviewing arbitral awards. It has been made clear that an award would be in conflict with public policy of India only when it is induced or affected by fraud or corruption or is in violation of Section 75 or Section 81 of the 1996 Act, if it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law or if it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
31. In Ssangyong [Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 213] , this Court held that the meaning of the expression "fundamental policy of Indian law" would be in accordance with the understanding of this Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. [Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644] . In Renusagar [Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1 ) SCC 644] , this Court Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 19 of 32 observed that violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, a statute enacted for the "national economic interest", and disregarding the superior Courts in India would be antithetical to the fundamental policy of Indian law. Contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest cannot be a ground to set at naught an arbitral award as being discordant with the fundamental policy of Indian law and neither can it be brought within the confines of "patent illegality" as discussed above. In other words, contravention of a statute only if it is linked to public policy or public interest is cause for setting aside the award as being at odds with the fundamental policy of Indian law. If an arbitral award shocks the conscience of the court, it can be set aside as being in conflict with the most basic notions of justice. The ground of morality in this context has been interpreted by this Court to encompass awards involving elements of sexual morality, such as prostitution, or awards seeking to validate agreements which are not illegal but would not be enforced given the prevailing mores of the day. [Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 213]"
17. Permissible grounds for interference with an arbitration award, in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended upto date), which can be culled out from the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court while read in the light of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 and Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49, are:-
1. A party to the agreement was under some incapacity; or
2. the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law; or Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 20 of 32
3. 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
4. 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: or
5. the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or
6. the subject-matter of the dispute was not arbitrable under law; or
7. the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India i.e.
a) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or
b) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law i.e.
i) the same is in contravention of the provisions of any statute enacted to protect the national interest such as the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which is enacted to ensure that the nation does not lose foreign exchange which is essential for the economic survival of the nation.Arbt No. 163/2018
M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 21 of 32
ii) the same is passed while disregarding orders passed by the superior courts in India.
iii) the same is passed disregarding the binding effect of the judgment of a superior court.
c) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality which in this context has been interpreted by Hon'ble Apex Court to encompass awards involving elements of sexual morality, such as prostitution, or awards seeking to validate agreements which are not illegal but would not be enforced given the prevailing mores of the day;
d) it is in conflict with most basic notions of justice i.e. it shocks the conscience of the Court.
8. It is vitiated by patent illegality on the face of award which means-
a) if an arbitrator gives no reasons for an award; or
b) if he construes the terms of a contract in a manner that no fair minded or reasonable person would i.e. the arbitrator's view is not even a possible view to take; or
c) if the arbitrator wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him; or
d) if he gives a finding based on no evidence at all; or
e) if he passes an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision; or
f) if he gives a finding based on documents taken behind the back of the parties; or Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 22 of 32
g) if he gives a finding based on documents copy of which had not been supplied to the opposite party.
18. Similarly, what is not permissible for a Court in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Act, in the light of said judgments can be summed up in the following manner:-
1. While adjudicating whether an award is in conflict with fundamental policy of law, the court shall not conduct review on the merits of the dispute;
2. an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence;
3. Contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest cannot be a ground to set at naught an arbitral award as being discordant with the fundamental policy of Indian law nor can it be brought within the confines of "patent illegality".
(B) Examination of Rival Contentions of The Parties
19. Now, let us examine the challenge made (to the award) under the present petition, in the light of the above-noted exposition of law.
20. As noted hereinabove, the case of the respondent is that he was having business relations with the petitioner. The petitioner is a group of companies having its allied and sister concern/ companies like A2Z Waste Management (Aligarh) Limited, A2Z Waste Management (Indore) Ltd. etcetera. The payments in respect of supply of goods were always received from the petitioner only, irrespective of the fact that billing of the supply of the goods had been done in the name of any sister concern or allied company of the petitioner.
Arbt No. 163/2018M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 23 of 32
21. The petitioner from time to time used to place purchase orders with the respondent for supply of different types of goods. The respondent used to supply goods to the petitioner at different places (as directed by the petitioner) on the basis of proforma invoices. Supplied goods were duly received by the petitioner on cash as well as credit basis, against proper bills. The respondent, in the regular course of business, was maintaining an open and running account in his books of account in respect of the petitioner, as per which, a sum of Rs. 5,34,524.80/- was due and outstanding against the petitioner, for (recovery of) which, the respondent preferred his claim before the Ld. Arbitrator.
22. The respondent has filed five invoices/ bills viz. No. 1135 dated 14.02.2012, No. 1139 dated 15.02.2012, No. 141 dated 14.05.2012, No. 184 dated 26.05.2012 and No. 100 dated 28.04.2012 (Ex.CW1/1 (colly)). All the invoices are duly reflected in the Statement of account/ Ledger account (Ex.CW1/4 (Colly)) filed by the respondent.
23. It may be noted that the Invoice Nos. 1135, 1139, 141 and 184 were raised in the name of M/s A2Z Infrastructure Limited (i.e. in the name of the petitioner Company) whereas Invoice No. 100 was raised in the name of M/s A2Z Waste Management (Aligarh) Limited. Accordingly, Invoice Nos. 1135, 1139, 141 and 184 were reflected in the Statement of account/ Ledger account maintained in the name of M/s A2Z Infrastructure Limited (i.e. in the name of the petitioner Company) whereas Invoice No. 100 was reflected in the Statement of account/ Ledger account maintained in the name of M/s A2Z Waste Management Limited.
24. The objection of the petitioner is that the Ld. Arbitrator failed to appreciate that liability of one company can not be fastened upon another company (being distinct entities), even if both are group companies, as Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 24 of 32 such the petitioner can not be held liable for the liability of its sister concern. In order to appreciate the objection of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner on this count, I am reproducing the relevant cross-examination of CW1;
"...I have seen purchase order dated 28.04.2012 Ex.CW1/1 (13) at page 43 of the documents placed in the LCR. It is correct that the order has been placed by M/s A2Z Waste Management (Aligarh) Ltd. and not by the respondents. (Vol.) It was placed by the sister concern of Respondent No. 1. These were same group of companies. It is wrong to suggest that M/s A2Z Waste Management (Aligarh) Ltd. is an independent company and is not part of respondent No. 1. It is correct that M/s A2Z Waste Management (Aligarh) Ltd. has not been impleaded in this case...It is wrong to suggest that Respondent No. 1 had never made payment in respect of the purchase order dated 28.04.2012 issued by M/s A2Z Waste Management (Aligarh) Ltd. (Vol.) All payments were received by us from Respondent no. 1 for all orders placed by the group of companies. It is wrong to suggest that Respondent No. 1 made payments only for the orders placed by it..."
25. It is clear from reading of cross-examination of CW1 that the petitioner is disputing its liability for invoice No. 100 dated 28.04.2012 raised in the name of M/s A2Z Waste Management (Aligarh) Limited.
26. As already noted, the case of the respondent is that the payments in respect of supply of goods were always received from the petitioner only, irrespective of the fact that billing of the supply of the goods had been done in the name of any sister concern or allied company of the petitioner. The respondent, to prove the liability of the petitioner, is relying on a document viz. balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013 signed by one Sh.
Arbt No. 163/2018M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 25 of 32 Rajinder Singh, an employee of the petitioner, Ex.CW1/3. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner by issuing balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013, Ex.CW1/3 has admitted its liability for the entire sum of Rs. 5,34,524.00 (of M/s A2Z Infrastructure Limited and M/s A2Z Waste Management (Aligarh) Limited). Respondent, in order to prove balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013, Ex.CW1/3, examined Sh. K. K. Sharma, Sales Manager, at M/s Paragon Trading Corporation as CW2. CW2 deposed that the balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013 was made in his presence in the office of the petitioner. It was signed by Sh. Rajinder Singh in his presence, who wrote the balance confirmation amount.
27. I have presented the findings of the Ld. Arbitrator, on the aspect of proving of balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013, Ex.CW1/3 and the effect thereof, in detail, in paras 7 (e) to (h) Supra. In the considered view of this Court, the Ld. Arbitrator has appreciated the evidence properly and took a correct view. This Court endorses the conclusion reached by the Ld. Arbitrator (reproduced herein below);
"31. A perusal of Ex.CW1/3 shows that the balance confirmation letter not only admits the fact that a sum of Rs. 5,34,524.80 is due and payable by the respondents, it further gives the details of the payment due. It shows that a sum of Rs. 4,75,504/- was due and payable on account of the supply to M/s A2Z Infrastructure Limited (Indore) whereas sum of Rs. 59,020/- was due and payable on account of the supply to M/s A2Z Waste Management Limited (Aligarh). This then lends credence to the plea set up by the claimant that there was an arrangement between the parties that even though the billing was being done in the name of different concerns/ companies of the respondents, the payment Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 26 of 32 was to be made by the respondent No. 1. I have already pointed out above that an averment to this effect in the statement of claim has not been specifically denied by the Respondents. This negates the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the statement of claim also contains bills raised on companies which are separate entities. Therefore, the balance confirmation letter Exhibit CW-1/3 clinches the matter in favour of the claimant..."
28. Next contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that the Ld. Arbitrator has failed to appreciate that the respondent had not accounted for the payment admittedly received by him against the invoice Nos. 141 and 184, in the statement of account, Ex.CW1/4 (Colly) filed by the respondent. As such the statement of account filed by the respondent is a false and fabricated document. In support of this contention, petitioner is solely relying on the cross-examination of CW1. I am referring the cross- examination of CW1 in this regard;
"...It is wrong to suggest that invoice No. 141 and 184 were not received by the respondent. (Vol.) The goods were sent through Prashant Roadlines. It is correct that there is no receipt given by the Respondent on these invoices. (vol.) All the goods sent through transport are delivered by the transporter alongwith the invoice. Even the payment in respect of goods for which these two invoices were raised has been received by us..."
29. So, the petitioner on the basis of the above referred testimony of CW1 (underlined by me), is trying to dispute the genuineness of the statement of account Ex.CW1/4 (Colly) filed by the respondent. The Statement of account Ex.CW1/4 (Colly) is having the debit entries equivalent to the value of goods delivered by the respondent to the petitioner through invoice Nos. 141 dated 14.05.2012 and No. 184 dated 26.05.2012.
Arbt No. 163/2018M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 27 of 32 Petitioner's argument is when CW1 admittedly saying that he has received the payment in respect of goods delivered against the invoice Nos. 141 and 184, there should be no occasion for the Statement of account Ex.CW1/4 (Colly) to have debit entries regarding invoice Nos. 141 and 184.
30. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected for following reasons (and as such rejected);
(i) It is not even the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has made the payment against the invoice Nos. 141 dated 14.05.2012 and No. 184 dated 26.05.2012 to the respondent. Petitioner has not filed any such document showing any such payment to the respondent. There is not even a suggestion to CW1 that the petitioner has made any such payment to the respondent.
(ii) There is a suggestion to CW1 (in his cross-examination) to the effect that It is wrong to suggest that we have not filed any receipt in respect of the goods supplied to the Respondent No. 1 as we had not actually supplied the goods for which the payment is being claimed in this case. Meaning thereby, suggestion to the respondent is that the respondent had not supplied any goods to the petitioner as claimed by him. Once the case of the petitioner is that no such goods were supplied to it, where is the question of making any payment to the respondent against invoice Nos. 141 dated 14.05.2012 and No. 184 dated 26.05.2012.
(iii) As already noted, the respondent has been able to prove that petitioner by issuing balance confirmation letter dated 02.04.2013, Ex.CW1/3 has admitted its liability for a sum of Rs. 5,34,524.80 (including for invoice Nos. 141 dated 14.05.2012 and No. 184 dated 26.05.2012).
Arbt No. 163/2018M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 28 of 32
(iv) While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the court has to assess whether, read as a whole, it is truthful. Statement of CW1 is to be appreciated as a whole and not by picking a single sentence in isolation. If we examine the testimony of CW1, he has been consistent that the petitioner has not paid the amount of Rs. 5,34,524.80/- to the respondent.
(v) The petitioner has not raised this plea before the Ld. Arbitrator. As an afterthought this issue is first time raised in the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
31. Last contention of the petitioner is that the impugned award is liable to be set aside as it is against the public policy of India/ fundamental policy of Indian Law as the Ld. Arbitrator has awarded interest @ 24% per annum, which is too excessive, exorbitant, arbitrary and in violation of the mandate of Section 31 (7) (a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s S. L. Arora & Co.; (2010) 3 SCC 690 and Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited V/s State of Orissa; (2015) 2 SCC 189. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd. V/s Interstate Construction; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4537 and Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates Pvt. Ltd. V/s DDA; 2010 SCC OnLine 693.
32. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the award of interest by the Ld. Arbitrator is neither illegal nor against any public policy but is based on evidence. He had further submitted that the award of interest can not be interfered with by a Court. Ld. Counsel for the Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 29 of 32 respondent has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V/s Susakka Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.; (2018) 2 SCC 182.
33. The Ld. Arbitrator has considered this issue in para 32 of the award while dealing with issue No. IV. The relevant observation of the Ld. Arbitrator on this point is;
"...My attention has been drawn to the bills raised on the Respondents as per which it had been agreed that the supplier shall be entitled to interest @ 3% per month if payment is not made within agreed time. The purchase Order Ex.CW1/1 specifies that 100% payment was required to be done against a proforma invoice. In view of the condition regarding payment of interest in the agreement between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of interest @ 24% per annum is justified. I, therefore, hold that the claimant is entitled to interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of Rs. 5,34,524.80 w.e.f. 02/05/2012 till the date of this award. Issue No. IV is decided accordingly."
34. So, the agreed rate of interest between the parties was 36% per annum. Whereas, the Ld. Arbitrator has granted interest on the reduced rate of interest i.e. @ 24% on an amount of Rs. 5,34,524.80 from 02.05.2012 till the date of award. Ld. Arbitrator has further granted future interest on the awarded amount @ 18% per annum till the date of realization. The cost of the proceedings is quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) which is awarded to the respondent.
35. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a recent judgment passed in M/s Star Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd. V/s Praveen Gupta & Anr.; O.M.P. (COMM) 516/2019 date of decision 30.09.2024, while referring/ quoting decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held;
Arbt No. 163/2018M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 30 of 32 "29. From a combined reading of the above judgments, it can be seen that (a) the arbitral tribunal has the discretion to grant pre- award interest and/or post-award interest, on either whole or part of the principal amount; (b) in proceedings under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is impermissible to reduce interest awarded since the same amounts to modification of the Award."
(Underlined by me)
36. In the considered view of this Court, in the present case, the Ld. Arbitrator has awarded interest reasonably and after duly appreciating evidence before him. Award of interest, in the facts of the present case, is not in conflict with or in violation of the public policy of India. The same, as such, does not warrant any interference by this court under the limited jurisdiction under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
37. At this stage, it may be noted that the decision in S.L. Arora Supra has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Supra. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Supra held that the arbitrator may grant post-award interest on the aggregate of the principal and the pre-award interest. It may also be noted that the judgment relied on by the petitioner of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates Pvt. Ltd. supra was passed in the context of the old arbitration Act i.e. the Arbitration Act, 1940.
38. The discussion made herein above demonstrates that the award is based on a judicial approach, fairness, reasonableness and objectivity. This court considers that the real test while deciding the petition under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is that if on perusal of the impugned award the court finds that it has been passed on no evidence or is patently illegal or it is irrational or irrelevant factor has been taken into Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 31 of 32 account, while ignoring vital evidence only then the court should interfere into the award. If the award is logical, based on reliable evidence, then there is no jurisdiction to interfere with the same. In the considered opinion of this court in the present case none of the conditions is present.
39. Thus, in view of the discussion made herein above, the petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
40. File (including original arbitral record) be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK (Announced in the open court on this 17th day of February, 2025 ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
This Judgment consists of Thirty Two of signed pages). 2025.02.17 16:33:11 +0530 (Abhishek Srivastava) District Judge-05, Central, THC, Delhi Arbt No. 163/2018 M/s A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain Judgement Dated 17.02.2025 Page no. 32 of 32