AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
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.
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 accordance with law and found it to be devoid of merit. There should be no interference in appeal.
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.
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.
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.
The ARBA is dismissed.
............................