In FAO No.2874 of 2020 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Scope of interference u/s 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited, reaffirms P&H HC
Justice Avneesh Jhingan [01-03-2023]

Read Order: Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Appellant versus M/s Swastik   Transformers Industries & another

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, March 2, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the dismissal of objections under Section 34 by observing that the contention later being raised before the High Court was never raised in the objections under Section 34.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan dismissed the instant appeal by observing that no case was made out for interference in the impugned order. 

The brief facts were such that the parties entered into a contract for repair of the transformer. The terms and conditions provided for dispute resolution through an arbitration mechanism. The first respondent raised a claim and the arbitration proceedings were initiated which culminated in an award dated April 20, 2016. The respondent was found entitled to recover interest @ 12% of 70% of the cost of the new transformer. The objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act were dismissed on April 19, 2019.

After considering the submissions from both the sides , the Court noted, “The scope of interference under Section 37 of the Act is limited” . Reference in this regard was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana Tourism Limited v. M/s Kandhari Beverages Limited. 

From the perusal of the award, it is forthcoming that a specific finding was recorded that the appellant in spite of availing numerous opportunities failed to produce evidence that the respondent was intimated about the damage to the transformer, the Court noted.  

There was another aspect to  be considered that the contention now being raised was never raised in the objections under Section 34 of the Act. There were no specific pleadings that there was evidence on the record to the effect that intimation of damaged transformer was sent to the respondent and the same was not considered. No case was hence made out for interference in the impugned order, the Court further observed. 

Hence, the appeal was accordingly dismissed.