Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 320 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. M/s. R. P. Goyal

2012-02-07

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 19th January, 2005, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Deeg, District Bharatpur, dismissed the application of the appellant-applicant filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment, it is relevant to record at the very outset that an arbitral award can be set aside under Sub Section 2 of Section 34 of Act, 1996, under the following circumstances. "(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if- (a) the party making the application furnishes proof that- (i) a party was under some incapacity, or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) 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 (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not failing within the terms of the submissions to arbitration, or it contains decision on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the arbitrator sans entering into the details of the payment made by the appellant to the respondents erringly passed the award. He further canvassed that the appellant examined two witnesses namely KC Sharma and Bharat Kumar Singhal Ex.En. but the arbitrator did not consider the statements and sans examining their statements, passed the award cursorily contrary to the material on record. 4. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is revealed that the learned counsel put-forth the same arguments before the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Deeg, and the learned Additional District Judge, having considered all the aspects and analyzed the material on record observed that the case of the appellant was not circumscribed by the specified conditions laid down under Sub-Section 2 of Section 34 of the Act, 1996. The appreciation of the statements of witnesses as also the material on record is within the exclusive domain of the arbitrator. The appreciation of the statements of witnesses as also the material on record is within the exclusive domain of the arbitrator. It is well settled that the award passed by the arbitrator is tantamount to a decree of a civil Court and the award can be assailed under Section 34 of the Act 1996 only when the conditions laid down under Sub-Section 2 of Section 34 of the Act, 1996 are properly fulfilled. The learned Additional District Judge is found to have critically analyzed all the facts emerging ad-longum and arrived at a correct finding that the appellant-applicant utterly failed to make out a case in his favour and thus, rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 34 of the Act. The impugned order is found to be just and apposite. It suffers from no legal infirmity and I do not find any ground so as to interfere with the impugned judgment. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the State has also utterly failed to convince me to take a contrary view to that of the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge No.1 Deeg. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed in limine.Consequent upon the dismissal of civil misc. appeal, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******