Arbitration Act | Scope Of Appeal U/S 37 Limited, Cannot Be Equated With Normal Appellate Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by DCM Ltd. u/s 37 of the A&C Act, refusing to re-examine evidence in view of the limited scope of the provision.The appeal by DCM Ltd. impugned a judgement by Single Bench of the court, whereby its challenge to an Arbitral Award u/s 34 A&C Act was dismissed.Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa and UHL Power Company Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court said:“Proceedings under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act are even more limited in scope than those under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and cannot be equated with the normal appellate jurisdiction of the court”.The genesis of the issue lay in agreements executed between the parties in 1993-94. Disputes had arisen, which were referred to and decided by a sole Arbitrator. As per the Arbitral Award, the appellant was entitled to a refund of Rs.8.05 crores from respondent No.1.The appellant was aggrieved by the Arbitrator’s refusal to direct payment of interest on the basis that entitlement thereto had been waived off by the appellant vide a letter signed in 2005 by its then Chairman and MD-Dr. Vinay Bharat Ram.This issue was raised before the Single Bench which, upon consideration, upheld the Arbitrator’s finding.Before the Division Bench, the appellant denied the veracity of the 2005 letter and averred that the Arbitrator erred in departing from the express language of the agreements, in terms whereof the appellant was entitled to interest in case respondents failed to fulfil their obligations. The court observed that the Arbitrator had given a “categorical finding” over appellant’s failure to establish fabrication of the 2005 letter. The Arbitrator’s finding that the letter was voluntarily signed by Dr. Vinay Bharat Ram was also considered by the court. Noting that the Arbitrator’s findings were “plausible” and based on evidence, the appeal was dismissed.Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Mr. Aman Gupta, Mr. Raghav Gupta and Mr. Ishant Sehrawat, Advocates appeared for appellantNone appeared for respondents.Case Title: DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd and OrsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073Click Here To Read/Download Order

Arbitration Act | Scope Of Appeal U/S 37 Limited, Cannot Be Equated With Normal Appellate Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Debby Jain

Tags