The Hon’ble Delhi High Court propounded that interference with interpretation and findings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is permissible, only if found to be perverse in the sense that no reasonable arbitral tribunal could have come to the same conclusion.
Brief Facts:
By way of the Contract, the Petitioner was appointed as Head of Finance of the Respondent company. Dispute arose out of certain fraudulent transactions committed by some of the employees of the Respondent company. No direct allegation of fraud or similar misconduct was made against the Petitioner, but he was suspended and his employment was subsequently terminated by a communication. To solve the dispute, an Arbitrator was appointed who upheld the termination. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the findings of the Learned Arbitrator, upholding the aforesaid termination, were directly contrary to the evidence on record, which proved that the Petitioner was the one who lodged an FIR in July 2019 against the concerned employees.
It was contended that the Learned Arbitrator had erred in holding that the Petitioner was aware of the investigation by the Registrar of Companies, which started only in November 2021, long after the termination of the Petitioner’s employment.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that factual determinations were based entirely upon the assessment of the evidence placed by the parties before the learned arbitrator. It was opined that interference with such interpretation and findings under Section 34 of the Act is permissible, only if found to be perverse in the sense that no reasonable arbitral tribunal could have come to the same conclusion.
It was held that the award cannot be overturned on the basis of alleged factual discrepancies in the analysis of the learned arbitrator relating to the quantum of the alleged fraud, dates of the inquiry by the Registrar of Companies, and the observation, that the FIR had not been pursued further.
The Bench propounded that an award is liable to be interdicted only if the deficiencies pointed out in the challenge go to the root of the matter.
The Decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court accoridngly dismissing the petition.
Case Title: Dheeraj Rastogi v Dnata International Pvt. Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Prateek Jalan
Case no.: O.M.P. 2/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv.Mr. Mohit Chaudhary
Advocate for the Respondents: Adv. Mr. Pushpendra Kr. Dhaka
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
