Arbitration Appeal dismissed. The Single Judge held that an appeal under section 37 does not continue the suit on merits and found no error in the District Judge's order rejecting the petition to set aside the award.
The ARBA (Arbitration Appeal) was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARBA No.12 Of 2017 (Through hybrid mode)
Union of India and others
…. Appellants
Mr. Avijit Pal, Advocate
-versus-
GEO Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd. & another
…. Respondents
Mr. S. C. Pradhan, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
15.11.2021
Order No.
08.
1. Mr. Pal, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellants in the arbitration appeal preferred against judgment dated 15th March, 2017 made by District Judge, Khurda in rejecting his clients’ petition for setting aside the award under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits, not only were claims of opposite party allowed but counter claims of his client rejected by the award. Contentions of his clients were not considered in rejecting the petition. His clients duly terminated the contract at risk of opposite party. Erroneous appreciation of the evidence resulted in the award. It was liable to and ought to have been set aside.
2. Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party and submits, petition under section 34 is not an appeal but a challenge. Learned District Judge considered the challenge in
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
accordance with law and found it to be devoid of merit. There should be no interference in appeal.
3. On perusal of the award it appears that contention of appellants was gone into. The Tribunal held that the termination of contract was not at risk or cost of claimant. The award was only in respect of money, the Tribunal found, as owing to claimant. The substantial claims resulted in nil award and counter claims were also rejected.
4. In impugned order there is consideration of the challenge in light of provision in section 34. There does not appear to be any error appearing therein. Nothing could be shown from impugned order to be erroneous appreciation of evidence, in the award for it to be said as based on no material.
5. Section 37 appeal lies to this Court as it is authorized to hear appeal from original decree. An appeal from decree would be continuation of the suit but an appeal from an order refusing to set aside award would be from against a challenge to the award. As such it cannot be said that section 37 appeal is continuation of the reference, for merits of contentions of parties in the arbitration, being gone into. In that view, this Court does not find any reason to vary or reverse impugned judgment.
6. The ARBA is dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge
Sks
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether appeal under section 37 lies against an order refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34.
Whether the High Court can vary or reverse the District Judge's order under section 37.
Whether the Tribunal's rejection of counter claims and allowance of claims was erroneous on appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India and others
GEO Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd.
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
