be milled by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was supplied 26,872.45 quintals of paddy, a part of that was milled and rice was supplied by respondent No.1 to the appellant. The remaining paddy 9,089.51 quintals has neither been milled nor returned to the appellant. The Court below has passed an erroneous order against respondent No.1 by exceeding the scope of Section 34 of the Act, 1996. The Court below has exercised the powers of an Appellate Authority, which has been seriously deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mcdermott International Inc vs. Burn Standard Company Limited and Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 181, it is submitted that the scope for interference under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is very limited, in fact, it is a supervisory role which has to be kept at a minimum level. Intervention of the Court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. Interference on the ground of patent illegality is permissible only on the ground that the cause goes to the root of the matter and in case of violation of public policy, the circumstances should be so unfair and unreasonable as to shock the conscience of the Court. Therefore, it is very clear that the Learned District Judge has exercised the powers of Appellate Court in setting aside the arbitral award, which is totally unfair. The public policy was not at all examined by the Court below. It has been similarly observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited vs. AMCI(I) Private Limited and Another reported in 2009 vol 17 SCC 796 .
