Delhi District Court
M/S Ss International vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
OMP (COMM.) No.25/2025
CNR No. DLCT010075412025
In the matter of
1. M/S S.S International
2. Sh. Rakesh Malik
Residing at:-
I-726, Ist Floor, I Block
Palam Vihar, Gurugram
Haryana-122017 ......Petitioners
Versus
M/S Sahni Trading Corporation
Through its Partner
Office at -594, Gandhi Cloth Market
Chandni Chowk,
Delhi 110006 ......Respondent
Date of filing of Petition : 23.05.2025
Date of arguments : 19.03.2026
Date of Order : 01.04.2026
Order :
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the present
petition/objections under section 34 of Arbitration
& Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as
'Act') filled by the petitioners M/s S.S International
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
(P-1) and Rakesh Malik (P-2) ( herein after referred
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.01
GOEL 15:12:40 +0530
M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation
OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 1 of 26 )
to as ' petitioners') against the respondent M/s Sahni
Trading Corporation through its partner assailing
the award dated 25.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to
as "impugned award"). Rakesh Malik (P-2) is
stated to be the sole proprietor of S.S International
(P-1).
2. Respondent M/S Sahni Trading Corporation
was the Claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal and
M/S S.S International and Rakesh Malik were the
respondents before the Arbitral Tribunal arrayed as
respondent no.1 and 2 respectively.
Facts of the case:
3. The brief facts of the case as gleaned from the records are that the respondent is said to have supplied the cloth material to the petitioners on credit basis vide various invoices; the invoices were duly acknowledged by the petitioners; during the course of business, the respondent was maintaining a running account of the petitioners; according to the respondent, an amount of Rs 9,74,769/- was due and outstanding against the petitioners till Digitally signed by April,2019; the said outstanding amount of Rs RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 15:12:48 9,74,769/- was confirmed by the petitioners; +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 2 of 26 ) petitioners made certain part payments; the petitioners issued six cheques towards the part payments, which on presentation received back dishonored; legal notices dated 25.09.2021 and 5.10.2021 were given to the petitioners demanding the outstanding amount of Rs 9,74,769/- but the payment was not made and a dispute arose between the parties; according to the respondent, one of the terms and conditions of the invoices was that in case any dispute arises between the buyer and the seller relating to the invoices, the same shall be referred to the arbitration to be conducted by Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association.
4. The respondent filed its claim before the Arbitral Tribunal for an amount of Rs 9,74,769/- alongwith interest @ 24 % from the date of placing the last order i.e on 14.9.2021 till date of actual realization of the payment; petitioners contested the said claim and filed the statement of defence; thereafter, the impugned award came to be passed, which is being challenged by way of present petition by the petitioners.
5. Notice of the present petition was issued. On Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
2026.04.01 being served, the respondent filed the reply to the GOEL 15:12:55 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 3 of 26 ) present petition alongwith reply to the application moved under Section 36 of the Act taking various objections stating that Section 34 does not confer appellate jurisdiction upon this Court; this court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal or re-appreciate the evidence; the petitioners, despite now alleging absence of consent and unilateral appointment, fully participated in the arbitral proceedings; at no stage, petitioners raised jurisdictional challenge; claim of the petitioners that the claim was time-barred is misconceived. It is submitted that the impugned award satisfied the mandate of section 31(3) of the Act and the Arbitral Tribunal has rendered findings on each issue supported by the cogent reasoning.
6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned award on the basis of certain grounds as mentioned in the petition and the same were reiterated during the arguments as well. Similarly, the respondent in its reply to the present petition has raised certain contentions which were reiterated by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent during the argument. For the sake of brevity, the averments made in the Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Date:
pleadings i.e petition and reply filed thereto and the GOEL 2026.04.01 15:13:03 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 4 of 26 ) arguments made are not being produced separately as it would be reproduction of the contentions. That being so, this court would be considering the respective contentions of the parties raised by way of the present petition and reply and also during arguments
7. The petitioners have assailed the impugned award, mainly on the following grounds and Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has also argued on the same lines:
i. The petitioners never consented to the arbitration clause or to refer the matter to the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. ii. The award has been passed without any reasoning and none of the contentions raised by the petitioners were attended to by the Arbitral Tribunal.
iii. The respondent is claiming to be a registered partnership firm but no document in this regard has been filed.
iv. The claim was filed by the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of the invoices which are of the year 2014; the Arbitration proceedings were initiated in the year 2024 which were beyond the period of limitation; no certificate u/s 65 B of the then Indian Evidence Act has been filed, so the ledger account and the email were not proved as per the law.
v. The original of the invoices were not produced
RAJESH
Digitally signed
by RAJESH by the respondent and only the photocopies of
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: the invoices were filed on record; the
GOEL 2026.04.01
15:13:08 +0530
M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 5 of 26 ) petitioners never confirmed the outstanding balance, as claimed by the respondent. vi. The authority letter in favour of one of the partners is of the year 2021 but the claim was filed in the year 2024. There is nothing on record suggesting that the said authority was given by the partner to initiate the proceedings against the petitioners.
vii. As per the ledger account, the last payment was made in the month of December,2019 but the proceedings were initiated in the year 2024 and by that calculation the claim was beyond the period of limitation and the limitation cannot be extended by presenting the cheques allegedly issued by the petitioners. viii. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has taken me to the cross examination of the CW1, the witness examined by the respondent and tried to make out a case that the Arbitral Tribunal has not considered the evidence in right prospective, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
ix. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a case titled as Suryadeep Engineering Pvt Ltd vs NM Construction 2025 AIR (Bom) 84
8. The respondent has contested the present petition raising following contentions which were reiterated by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent also during the arguments:-
i. It is well settled law that the bar u/s 69 of the Partnership Act, is not applicable to the arbitration proceedings as the arbitration proceedings did not come within the ambit of "
Digitally signed other proceedings" as referred to in section 69 of RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL the said Act.
KUMAR Date:
2026.04.01 GOEL 15:13:14 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 6 of 26 ) ii. The claim filed by the respondent was within the limitation; there was a running account maintained by the respondent as per which the last payment was made by the petitioners in the month of December,2019.
iii. There was a confirmation of the outstanding balance by the petitioners in the year 2020; pursuant to that confirmation, the petitioners had issued certain cheques dated September,2021 which were dishonored on presentation thus the limitation would start from the month of September, 2021; the arbitration proceedings were initiated in the month of March,2024, which is well within the period of limitation. iv. Regarding the existence of the arbitration clause, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that since the invoices have been proved and admitted, therefore, the petitioners cannot deny the conditions as mentioned in the invoices. He has drawn my attention towards the clause 9 as mentioned in the invoice and submitted that there is an arbitration clause according to which it was agreed that in case any dispute arises between the parties, it shall be referred to Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association and it cannot be treated as a unilateral appointment of Arbitrator as the petitioners have consented to the same. v. There is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned award and the material facts and the evidence led by the parties were duly considered by the Arbitral Tribunal.
vi. By referring to section 19 of the Arbitration Act, Ld. Counsel submitted that strict compliance of the provisions of Indian Evidence Act is not required to be complied with in the Arbitration proceedings therefore, even if the respondent has not filed the certificate u/s 65 B of the then Indian Evidence Act, it would not make any difference.Digitally signed
RAJESH by vii. He has relied upon the following judicial RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 15:13:20 +0530 authorities:-
M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 7 of 26 )
(a) MMTC Ltd. Vs. Vedanta LTd., (2019) 4 SCC 163
(b) Associate Builders Vs DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49.
(c) BSNL Vs Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 5 SCC 738.
(d) Hari Om Sharma Vs Sauman Kumar Chatterjee & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine Del.
(e) Umesh Goel Vs. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., (2016) 11 SCC 313
(f) Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co.Ltd Vs NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131
(g) Swastik Pipe Ltd. Vs. Dimple Verma, MANU /DE/2889/2022.
(h) Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd vs Mitsui Marubeni Corporation, 2005 (3) ARBLR234
(i) M/s Umesh Goel Vs Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group, AIR 2016 SC 3116
9. I have perused the record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. I have also gone through the case laws cited at the bar.
10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has basically raised 3-4 contentions. Firstly, since the respondent is not registered with the Registrar of Firms, therefore, the claim of the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal was not maintainable. Secondly, the petitioners never consented to the Arbitration clause/agreement to refer the matter to the Delhi Hindustan Mercantile Association and Thirdly, the Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Impugned Award is lacking the reasons and non KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 15:13:24 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 8 of 26 ) appreciation of the evidence , including the fact that the claim filed by the respondent was barred by limitation.
Non registration of the respondent with the Registrar of Firms.
11. According to the petitioners in view of the statutory bar created u/s 69 of the Partnership Act, the claim filed by the respondent was not maintainable. As per section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act, no suit to enforce the right arising from the Contract can be instituted in any court on behalf of the firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Registrar of Firm as partners in the firm.
12. It is no more res-integra that bar of section 69 of the Partnership Act does not come within the expression " other proceedings" as used in section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act and thus the ban imposed u/s 69 of the said Act has no application to the Arbitration Proceedings (Hari Om Sharma (Supra)). Thus, the contention of the petitioners that arbitration proceedings or the impugned award is Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Date:
non-est in the eyes of law being barred u/s 69 of the GOEL 2026.04.01 15:13:29 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 9 of 26 ) Partnership Act is not tenable and being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected, hence, stands rejected.
Petitioners never consented to Arbitration Clause
13. Before proceeding further, here it would be relevant to refer to the pleadings of both the parties filed before the Arbitral Tribunal.
14. The paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim filed by the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal reads as under:-
"4. That the Claimant and Respondent are known to each other on account of business dealings and the Respondents have been purchasing Cloth material from Claimant upon order. In pursuance of the said dealings the Respondents has a running account in the account books of the Claimant being operated in due course of business. The Claimant upon receiving the orders from the Respondents used to supply the material on credit basis as and when required. Upon each order being successfully fulfilled the invoices were duly raised by the Claimant and the same were acknowledged by the Respondents, not being disputed then and stands unpaid till date."
15. The stand of petitioners to the aforesaid averments as pleaded in the reply to the said claim, on merits, is as under:-
"4. That the content of Para No. 4 of the claim is wrong Digitally signed & denied. It is further submitted that the respondents not RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
used to purchase material from claimant on credit basis. GOEL 2026.04.01 15:13:42 +0530 It is further submitted that the respondent had already M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 10 of 26 ) cleared the dues and respondent has no liability of any kind".
16. The said pleadings make it clear that the invoices raised by the respondent as such are not in dispute. According to the petitioners, they have already cleared the dues and there exists no liability towards them. The petitioners have not denied the invoices. So the moot question for consideration is whether any of the parties, in the background of the fact that invoices are not in dispute, can deny the terms and conditions as mentioned in the invoices? In my considered opinion, in the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the answer would be 'NO'.
17. In the case of Swastik Pipe Ltd case (Supra) our own Hon'ble High Court observed as under:-
"11. In the case in hand, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that it had earlier received similar tax invoices from the petitioner against which the payments have been made to the petitioner. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the tax invoices for which claim has been made has not been received by the respondent. If that be so, respondent cannot disown the clear stipulation in the tax invoice with regard to any dispute being referred to arbitration. Even the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Swastik Pipe Ltd. (supra) in a very detailed Judgement by referring to the Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 15:13:48 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 11 of 26 ) various judgments including Scholar Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Lewis W. Fernandes (supra) and other judgments has in Para 16 held as under and refer the matter for arbitration by appointing an arbitrator:
"16. As noted above, SRAPL has elected to stay away from the present proceedings. Despite service of notice, they have chosen not to appear, for reasons best known to them. They have not filed a reply to deny the assertion, both in response to the legal notice invoking arbitration, as well as to the present petition. The consequence of such non-appearance is that the assertion of existence of the arbitration agreement is unrebutted. Thus, prima facie, it can be inferred that the arbitration agreement exists between the parties."
18. The mandate and observations as made in the case of Swastik Pipe Ltd case (supra) squarely apply to the present case also. In the present case there is no dispute that one of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the invoices reads "Goods are sold according to Rules and regulations of Delhi Hindustan Mercantile Association. In case any dispute arises between the buyer and seller relating to this invoice, it shall be referred to the arbitration of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association and the decision given by the arbitrator/s or tribunal appointed by it shall be binding upon the parties". Accordingly, the invoices having Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL the arbitration clause is a binding contract between KUMAR Date:
2026.04.01 GOEL 15:13:53 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 12 of 26 ) the parties and consequently the dispute between the parties could have been referred to the arbitration as agreed by the parties including the fact that in case of dispute the matter shall be referred to Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. The Act recognizes the autonomy of the parties to choose their own Arbitrator in terms of their Agreement. In the present case both the parties agreed to refer the dispute to Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association, so it would not come within the category of unilateral appointment.
19. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the instant contention also of the petitioners can not be accepted and the same stands rejected.
The impugned award is without any reasoning and claim was time barred
20. It is no more res integra that 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, Digitally signed by Courts are mandated to strictly act in accordance RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 within the confines of Section 34, refraining from 15:13:59 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 13 of 26 ) appreciation or re-appreciation of matters of fact as well as law. Thus, the judicial interference, if any, is provided inter-alia only by means of Sections 34 and 37 of the Act respectively.
21. The bare perusal of section 34 mandates a narrow lens of supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the arbitral award strictly on the grounds and parameters enumerated in sub-section (2) & (3) thereof, which inter-alia provide for the grounds on which an arbitral award is liable to be set aside.
22. According to the aforesaid provision of law, the interference is permitted where the award is found to be in contravention to public policy of India i.e. if the award is induced or affected by fraud or corruption or is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law or it is in conflict with most basic notions of morality and justice. Thus, a plain reading of Section 34 reveals that the scope of interference by the court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited and the court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to find out if the award is good or bad.
Digitally signedRAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
2026.04.01 GOEL 15:14:05 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 14 of 26 )
23. It is also, a settled proposition of law as has been constantly observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the courts exercising jurisdiction under section 34 do not sit in appeal over the arbitral award hence they are not expected to examine the legality, reasonableness or correctness of findings on facts or law unless they come under any of grounds mandated in the said provision.
24. Also, pertinent to note that an arbitral award is not liable to be interfered with only on the ground that the award is illegal or is erroneous in law that too upon reappraisal of the evidence adduced before the arbitral trial. Even an award which may not be reasonable or is non-speaking to some extent cannot ordinarily be interfered with by the courts. It is also well settled that even if two views are possible there is no scope for the court to reappraise the evidence and to take the different view other than that has been taken by the Arbitral Tribunal . The view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal is normally acceptable and ought to be allowed to prevail. Further, for setting aside of the impugned order on the ground of "patent illegality", as raised in the present cases Digitally also, there must be patent illegality appearing on the signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 15:14:09 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 15 of 26 ) 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.
25. There are plethora of judgments on the settled proposition of law, I may just refer to some of them as under:-
26. In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K. Ahuja,(2001) 4 SCC 86 , it has been observed as under:
"11. There are limitations upon the scope of interference in awards passed by an arbitrator. When the arbitrator has applied his mind to the pleadings, the evidence adduced before him and the terms of the contract, there is no scope for the court to reappraise the matter as if this were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view taken by the arbitrator would prevail. So long as an award made by an arbitrator can be said to be one by a reasonable person no interference is called for. However, in cases where an arbitrator exceeds the terms of the agreement or passes an award in the absence of any evidence, which is apparent on the face of the award, the same could be set aside."
27. In Dyna Technology Private Limited v.
Crompton Greaves Limited, (2019) 20 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"24. There is no dispute that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act limits a challenge to an award only on Digitally signed the grounds provided therein or as interpreted by RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL various courts. We need to be cognizant of the fact KUMAR Date:
2026.04.01 GOEL 15:14:13 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 16 of 26 ) that arbitral awards should not be interfered with in a casual and cavalier manner, unless the court comes to a conclusion that the perversity of the award goes to the root of the matter without there being a possibility of alternative interpretation which may sustain the arbitral award. Section 34 is different in its approach and cannot be equated with a normal appellate jurisdiction. The mandate under Section 34 is to respect the finality of the arbitral award and the party autonomy to get their dispute adjudicated by an alternative forum as provided under the law. If the courts were to interfere with the arbitral award in the usual course on factual aspects, then the commercial wisdom behind opting for alternate dispute resolution would stand frustrated.
25. Moreover, umpteen number of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the courts should not interfere with an award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The courts need to be cautious and should defer to the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal even if the reasoning provided in the award is implied unless such award portrays perversity unpardonable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act."
28. In Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v.
Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking,(2023) 9 SCC 85, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not like a normal appellate jurisdiction and the courts should not interfere with the arbitral award lightly in a casual and a cavalier manner. The mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or Digitally signed by interpretation of the contract does not entitle the RAJESH RAJESH courts to reverse the findings of the arbitral tribunal. KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 15:14:21 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 17 of 26 )
29. In MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. (Supra) , the powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act have been explained by Apex Court in the following words :
"11. As far as Section 34 is concerned, the position is well-settled by now that the Court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award and may interfere on merits on the limited ground provided under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) i.e. if the award is against the public policy of India. As per the legal position clarified through decisions of this Court prior to the amendments to the 1996 Act in 2015, a violation of Indian public policy, in turn, includes a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law, a violation of the interest of India, conflict with justice or morality, and the existence of patent illegality in the arbitral award. Additionally, the concept of the "fundamental policy of Indian law"
would cover compliance with statutes and judicial precedents, adopting a judicial approach, compliance with the principles of natural justice, and Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (CA)] reasonableness. Furthermore, "patent illegality" itself has been held to mean contravention of the substantive law of India, contravention of the 1996 Act, and contravention of the terms of the contract."
30. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. (Supra) and has spelt out the contours of the limited scope of judicial interference in reviewing the arbitral Digitally signed by awards under the Act and observed thus :
RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 15:14:26 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 18 of 26 ) "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] 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 expansion has been done away with. In short, Western Geco , as explained in paras 28 and 29 of Associate Builders , 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 challenge of an award, as is contained in para 30 of Associate Builders .
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 , 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 Digitally signed Associate Builders , or secondly, that such award is RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date: against basic notions of justice or morality as 2026.04.01 GOEL 15:14:31 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 19 of 26 ) understood in paras 36 to 39 of Associate Builders . 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 , as understood in Associate Builders , and paras 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with.
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 , 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 , 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 Digitally signed by paras 42.3 to 45 inAssociate Builders , namely, that RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date: the construction of the terms of a contract is GOEL 2026.04.01 15:14:35 primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 20 of 26 ) 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 , 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."
31. Here I may also note the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court made in another case of Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 375 at page 401:-
"32. Post award interference and the extent of the second look by the courts under Section 34 of the A&C Act has been a subject-matter of perennial parley. The foundation of arbitration is party autonomy. Parties have the freedom to enter into an agreement to settle their disputes/claims by an Arbitral Tribunal, whose decision is binding on the Digitally signed by parties. [ See Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 : which examines KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 arbitrability and non-arbitrability of subject-matters 15:14:39 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 21 of 26 ) and claims, which aspect will not be examined in this case.] It is argued that the purpose of arbitration is fast and quick one-stop adjudication as an alternative to court adjudication, and therefore, post award interference by the courts is un-warranted, and an anathema that undermines the fundamental edifice of arbitration, which is consensual and voluntary departure from the right of a party to have its claim or dispute adjudicated by the judiciary. The process is informal, and need not be legalistic [ The expression "judicially", does not equate arbitration with formal/court proceedings, and would include a just and fair decision.] . Per contra, it is argued that party autonomy should not be treated as an absolute defence, as a party despite agreeing to refer the disputes/claims to a private tribunal consensually, does not barter away the constitutional and basic human right to have a fair and just resolution of the disputes. The court must exercise its powers when the award is unfair, arbitrary, perverse, or otherwise infirm in law. While arbitration is a private form of dispute resolution, the conduct of arbitral proceedings must meet the juristic requirements of due process and procedural fairness and reasonableness, to achieve a "judicially" sound and objective outcome. If these requirements, which are equally fundamental to all forms of adjudication including arbitration, are not sufficiently accommodated in the arbitral proceedings and the outcome is marred, then the award should invite intervention by the court."
32. Hence, in the light of the settled proposition of law, the contentions so raised on behalf of the petitioners need to be examined. According to the petitioners the impugned award is not a reasoned Digitally signed by one and time barred claim was considered.
RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 15:14:44 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 22 of 26 )
33. I have carefully perused the Arbitral records including the impugned award. Having gone through the impugned award, it would be difficult to say that the same is lacking reasoning and consequently is liable to be set aside.
34. The impugned award indicates that after framing the issues the Arbitral Tribunal has referred to the evidence led by one of the partners of the respondent by way of affidavit and the cross examination of the said witness on behalf of the petitioners. It was also recorded that the petitioners chose not to lead any evidence and proceedings came to be adjourned for final arguments giving the option to the parties to file written synopsis.
35. While giving findings on the issues, the Arbitral Tribunal has considered the Ledger account ExCW1/5 and the confirmation given by the petitioners Ex CW1/4 and consequently reached at a conclusion that the respondent would be entitled for the principal amount of Rs 8,49,769/- The Tribunal has also observed that the petitioners did not lead any evidence and only the statement of Digitally RAJESH signed by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL defence/reply to the claim of the respondent has KUMAR Date:
GOEL been filed. It has also been observed that the 2026.04.01 15:14:51 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 23 of 26 ) petitioners did not produce any ledger account in order to prove their contentions. In these circumstances, it would also be difficult to say that the impugned award is without any reasons or there is patent illegality which goes to the root of the matter.
36. Here I may mention that, arbitration proceedings are not bound by the strict, technical rules of the Evidence Act, 1872 or the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023, as the case may be. This flexibility is mandated by Section 19(1) of the Act, allowing the tribunal to determine the admissibility, relevance, and weight of evidence based on fairness and efficiency rather than rigid procedural hurdles. Even the mandatory certification requirement under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) for electronic records does not strictly apply to arbitral proceedings. Meaning thereby, Arbitral Tribunal can admit electronic records (emails, WhatsApp messages) without a certificate if it is satisfied with the evidence's authenticity.
RAJESH Digitally signed by RAJESH
37. Pertinent to mention that while not bound by KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.04.01 15:15:08 the "sensu stricto" (strict) provisions of the +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 24 of 26 ) Evidence Act, Tribunals generally adhere to its underlying principles regarding relevancy and natural justice. The Arbitral Tribunal is not authorized to ignore vital evidence, but has wide discretion in its appreciation.
38. Coming back to the case at hand, the petitioners admittedly contested the claim filed by the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal and they were given fair opportunity to lead the evidence, so, there is no violation of principle of natural justice. From the impugned award, as noted herein above, it is evident that the Arbitral Tribunal has considered the facts and the evidence led by the respondent including the confirmation of statement of account ExCW1/4 bringing the claim within limitation. Having said so, this court is not supposed to examine the legality, reasonableness or correctness of the findings on facts or law including on the rest of the contentions raised by the petitioners by way of the present petition. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the Arbitral Tribunal has not appreciated the facts and has not Digitally signed by considered the evidence in proper perspective, even RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
if for the sake of argument is accepted, would not GOEL 2026.04.01 15:15:14 +0530 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 25 of 26 ) be sufficient to interfere with the impugned award.
39. The materials placed on record, including the impugned award, would disclose that the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal, passing the award in favour of the respondent is reasonable. In the given circumstances, I do not see how this court could have re-appreciated the same to come to a contrary finding. Hence, the present petition/objection being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed.
40. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
41. The Arbitration Record be sent back.
Digitally signedRAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.01 15:15:19 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 01.04.2026 Announced in the Open Court today i.e:01.04.2026 M/s S.S International & Ors Vs M/S Sahni Trading Corporation OMP (25/2025 ) Date of order 01.04.2026 (Page 26 of 26 )