Delhi High Court
World Media Ltd. vs Prasar Bharti on 16 December, 2009
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. No.721/2009
Reserved on: December 4, 2009.
Pronounced on: December 16,2009
WORLD MEDIA LTD. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.K.Ganju, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, Advocate.
VERSUS
PRASAR BHARTI ....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
% JUDGMENT
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
1. This objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the final Award passed by the sole Arbitrator
on 28.8.09. By the impugned Award, the Arbitrator has passed an Award for a
sum of Rs.46,85,295/- in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner
OMP No.721/2009 Page 1
being the sum owed to the respondent by the petitioner on account of telecast
by the respondent of the programmes of the petitioner such as "Aaj Tak" and
"Subah Aaj Tak" between the period October and December, 2000.
2. Before I proceed to consider the two main contentions which have
been urged by the counsel for the petitioner I may note that against the first
Award dated 01.2.08, objections were filed under Section 34 and which
objections were dismissed by the order dated 20.8.09 of a learned Single Judge
of this Court in O.M.P. 96/2009. An appeal has been filed against the said order
of the learned Single Judge and in the appeal numbered as FAO(OS) No.432/09,
though notice has been issued, the present petitioner has been directed to
deposit the principal amount of Rs.83 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.
I am stating this fact at the outset because the order of the learned Single Judge
was not filed alongwith present petition, and, one of the arguments advanced is
covered by the decision dated 20.8.2009 in the said OMP 96/2009.
3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has urged two main
contentions. The first contention is that the Arbitrator has committed an error in
dismissing the application for amendment filed by the petitioner vide his order
dated 04.4.2009 by which application, the petitioner sought to make a claim of
set off. The second contention is that there was no arbitration agreement
OMP No.721/2009 Page 2
between the parties and therefore the arbitration proceedings could not take
place and nor could the Award have been passed.
4. Taking the second objection first, before I proceed, firstly I would
seek to reproduce para 3 of the Award and which runs as under:-
"3. In the Reply to the Claimant‟s claim the Respondent has not disputed
the claim of the Claimant on merits at all. The entire defence of the
Respondent is focused on submitting that the Claimant ought to have made a
claim against TV Today, a division of another company called Living Media
India Limited, with whom the Claimant had entered into a separate agreement
for the telecast of the same programmes produced by them. I have already
dealt with this argument of the Respondent in my Interim Award dated 1 st
December 2008 and in my Order dated 27th February 2008 in respect of the
Respondent‟s application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 and will therefore not repeat it here. Suffice it to say that the
contention has no merit and it already stands rejected. Apart from the said
reason the Respondent has said nothing as to why it should not be asked to
pay the Claimant."
It is quite clear that this issue was dealt with and was a subject matter of
decision of the first Award and objection against which Award have also been
dismissed vide judgment dated 20.8.2009 in OMP 96/2009. This issue therefore
of there being no arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the
respondent is barred by res judicata. Nothing further needs to be said further on
this objection of the petitioner.
5. The second objection was that the Arbitrator wrongly dismissed the
amendment application vide order dated 04.4.2009 whereby the claim of set off
was sought to be made. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended
OMP No.721/2009 Page 3
that though admittedly there were no details of set off in the original written
statement filed, he stated that in the heading of the written statement it was
however mentioned that there is a set off. He further contended that the
Arbitrator was not justified in not granting the adjournment on 04.4.09 when the
application for amendment was dismissed. Before I advert to the order dated
04.04.09 passed by the Arbitrator I would at this stage seek to reproduce para 12
of the impugned Award which read as under:
"12. On the issue of costs my view is that the conduct of the Respondent
was largely responsible for several avoidable hearings to have taken place.
Though the order dated 26th October 2004 of the Hon‟ble Delhi High court by
which the disputes were referred to arbitration contemplated that the final
award be rendered within six months, owing to several machinations of the
Respondent that are duly recorded in my various orders the arbitration has
lasted a nearly five years. In this regard my orders are self-explanatory and I
will not repeat them or the events recorded therein for explanatory and I will
not repeat them or the events recorded therein for the sake of brevity. Further, I
have found that the Respondent‟s application under Section 16 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as also its defence was without any
merit at all. I am of the opinion that the Respondent has needlessly compelled
the Claimant into these proceedings and in the meanwhile has enjoyed the
Claimant‟s money. The Respondent never had any valid defence to the
Claimant‟s claim and the effort appears to have been to delay the resolution of
the dispute as much as possible. The conduct of the Respondent has been most
unfair. In the totality of circumstances I would therefore award 9/10 of
reasonable costs of this arbitration to the Claimant, keeping in mind that
initially even the Claimant did not co-operate for the expeditious disposal of
the proceedings. I would therefore keep this proceedings open only for the
limited purpose of awarding costs and request the Claimant to submit to me its
bill of costs latest by 19th September 2009. In the event that the Claimant fails
to submit its bill of costs by the said date, I will regard these proceedings as
closed. (Emphasis added)
OMP No.721/2009 Page 4
6. In addition to the above para, I would also seek to refer para 5 of
the impugned Award and which reads as under:
"5. Though such is the stand taken in the letter dated 19th December
2001, the Respondent has not asserted any of it in its Reply to the
Claimant‟s claim. In fact despite several opportunities given to the
Respondent it failed to submit any counter-claim and finally there right to
file a counter- claim was closed by the order dated 29th May 2006. Not
only that the Respondent has not even submitted anything to show that:
a. owing to the change of timing from 10.00 pm to 10.05 pm its
advertisers withdrew the booking and did not pay for the advertisement
shown during the programme; or
b. the viewership of the programme dropped drastically thereby
drastically affecting the advertisement bookings for the said time slot
which resulted in drop in revenue earnings; or
c. as a result of a 5 minute change (delay) in the telecast of the
programmes the Respondent suffered loss of Rs.1,70,00,000 or any part
thereof; or
d. that the Accreditation Agreement contemplated any notice to the
Respondent if there was to be a change in the time of telecast; or
e. that payment to the Claimant was dependent on the Respondent
receiving the payment from its Client."
7. A reference to the aforesaid paras 5 and 12 clearly show that the
present petitioner was guilty of malafidely delaying the conduct of the
arbitration proceedings and avoiding payment of the dues of the
respondent/Parsar Bharti. The petitioner has also failed to establish its counter
claim that the advertisers withdrew the booking or that the viewership of the
OMP No.721/2009 Page 5
programme dropped drastically or that the present petitioner suffered a loss of
Rs.1,70,000,00 as alleged.
8. So far as the order dated 4.4.09 is concerned, though the same is a
detailed order, I have no option but to reproduce the same in totality because I
can do no better:
"4.4.2009
ORDER
1. By this Order I propose to deal with the Respondent‟s Application
th
dated 6 March, 2009 seeking to amend its Reply dated 29th / 30th May
2006 to the Claimant‟s claim.
2. I made my Interim Award in the matter on 1st December 2008 and had
fixed 6th December 2008 as the next date of further directions in the matter. On
6th December 2008 it was agreed that the Claimant will submit their affidavit by
way of evidence by 22 nd December 2008 and the Respondent will do the same
by 6th January 2009. Both parties were requested to intimate me in writing
whether they will wish to cross-examine any of the witnesses of the other party.
The matter was fixed for 10th January 2009. That date was subsequently
postponed to 17th January 2009.
3. On 17th January 2009 counsel for the Claimant stated that he did not
wish to file any further evidence and that he would prosecute his case on the
basis of pleadings and evidence on record. In view of the said statement of the
Claimant, I closed his evidence. The respondent, appearing through a new
counsel, Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra sought three weeks time to file his affidavit by
way of evidence. The said request was acceded to and the Respondent was
granted the three weeks as requested. It was clarified in the said Order, inter
alia, that if the Respondent did not file any affidavit by way of evidence, the next
date i.e. 21st February 2009, would be treated as the date for final arguments in
the matter. For the sake of completeness I may record here that Mr. Sanjeev
Malhotra, Advocate had appeared without any power of attorney and, on my
query on the issue, had stated that he would file one within two days. That was
not done despite the fact that the 21st February date was extended to 14th March
2009.
OMP No.721/2009 Page 6
4. Just four days prior to 14th March 2009 i.e 10th March, 2009 at 4.00
p.m. the Respondent caused to be delivered at my office by hand an Application
under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („the said
Act‟) alongwith annexures and supporting affidavit of one Mr. Chander Prakash
Vohra, Director of the Respondent praying that the Respondent be allowed to
amend its Reply dated 29th /30th May 2006 and supplement its defence alongwith
particulars of set off set out in Annexure „A‟. A copy of the said Application was
also sent to Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Counsel for the Claimant.
5. On 14th March 2009 Mr. Sharma submitted that he would not wish to
file any reply to the said Application and would argue straightway on the basis
of materials already on record. Mr. Sharma submitted that the purpose of the
Application was merely to delay the final hearing and that the same was not only
malafide but amounted to a gross abuse of the process.
6. On being asked to make his submission on the application, Mr. Sanjeev
Malhotra, Advocate prayed for time. He sought an adjournment on the ground
that he had engaged Mr. T.K.Ganju, Senior Advocate to appear on behalf of the
Respondent and that Mr. Ganju was not available on that date to make his
submissions.
7. The said request was vehemently opposed by Mr. Sharma.
8. Given the fact that 14th March 2009 was the date fixed for final
arguments (since the Respondent had not filed any affidavit by way of evidence)
I was of the view that the Application as well as the final arguments ought to be
argued straightway. Accordingly I rejected the prayer for adjournment.
9. Mr. Malhora made the following submissions in support of his
application seeking amendment of the reply.
a. That in its reply dated 19th December 2001 (Exhibit C-17) to the
Claimant‟s notice dated 20th November 2001 (Exhibit C-16) the Respondent had
claimed that it had suffered losses and damages to the extent of Rs.1.7 crores
and was therefore not liable to pay the amount claimed by the Claimant. He
relied upon paragraph 5 of the said reply. That the Respondent was under the
"bonafide impression" that the details and particulars of set off has been raised
in the reply and set off. However, "it appears that by inadvertence, although the
plea of set off has been raised, the details of the set off were not furnished".
b. That the Respondent was therefore seeking leave to supplement its
defence by seeking leave to amend.
OMP No.721/2009 Page 7
c. That no prejudice would be caused to the Claimant because the plea of
set off had already been communicated to the Claimant vide its reply dated 19th
December 2001.
d. That the plea of set off already existed in the reply and that it was the
details and particulars of set off what were being furnished by way of the present
application.
e. That the proceedings were at the initial stage as "evidence of the parties
have not commenced".
10. Opposing the prayer for amendment Mr. Rajeev Sharma, relying upon
Section 23(3) of the said Act, submitted that the Application for amendment
should be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay in making it. Mr. Sharma
relied upon the records of the proceedings to point out the various landmarks
that had already occurred and the Respondent had never even thought of
claiming a set off. In his submission the Application has been made as an
afterthought.
11. Record of the proceedings, to the extent relevant, would show that as
early as 8th August 2005 i.e. at the third meeting, the Respondent had expressed
its desire to submit a counter claim against the Claimant. Accordingly, the
Claimant was given six weeks time i.e.upto 28th September 2005 to file the
same. The next date of hearing was fixed for 8th December 2005.
12. On 8th December 2005 also no counter claim was filed and, at the
request of the Respondent a last opportunity was accorded to them to file one by
19th January 2006. The next date was slated for 30th March 2006.
13. On 30th March 2006 once again the Respondent did not file any counter
claim and accordingly the arbitral proceedings insofar as they related to the
counter claim of the Respondent were terminated. The Respondent was
nevertheless provided an opportunity to submit its Reply to the Claimant‟s claim
on or before 20th April 2006. The matter was fixed for 29th May 2006.
14. On 29th May 2006 though the Respondent filed its Reply, it was not
supported by any affidavit. The Counsel for the Claimant stated that he did not
object to the Reply being taken on record provided the necessary affidavit was
furnished by the next date. That affidavit was filed with me on 30 th May 2006.
15. On the same date i.e 29th May 2006 the Respondent made an
Application under Section 16 of the said Act submitting that the Arbitral
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant‟s claim.
OMP No.721/2009 Page 8
16. Between 29th May 2006 and 11th November 2006 the Respondent
created a lot of confusion over carrying out admission/denial of documents
which led me to pass my order dated 11th November 2006 by which I ordered
that several documents would be deemed to have been admitted by the
Respondent. On the same date i.e 11th November 2006 the parties also
concluded their arguments on Section 16 Application.
17. In my order of 6th December 2006 I recorded that the Respondent had
made an Application for the recall of the order of 11 th November 2006 and
accordingly I issued directions to the parties to file their replies, rejoinder etc.
The next date was fixed for 22nd December 2006. That date was postponed to
27th December 2006 and thereafter to 6th January 2007. The dates continued to
get postponed. Arguments on the said Application were eventually concluded at
the 11th meeting held on 3rd March 2007. On the same date Mr. Sharma for the
Claimant filed his application praying for an interim Award in his Client‟s
favour. Appropriate directions with regard to filing of reply, rejoinder were
issued to the parties.
18. By my Order of 11th June 2007, I rejected the Claimant‟s Application
for recall of my Order dated 11th November 2006. The next date was fixed for
7th July 2007 as the parties desired to make further submissions on the Section
16 Application.
19. Owing to various requests for adjournment, the hearing could take
place only on 8th November 2007. On this date oral arguments on Section 16
Application were formally closed and I reserved my order thereon.
20. By my Order dated 27th February 2008, I rejected the Respondent‟s
Application under Section 16 of the said Act and concluded that the Tribunal
had jurisdiction to decide upon the disputes submitted before it. Parties were
informed that further proceedings would take place on 15th March 2008.
21. On 15th March 2008 Mr. Sharma, Counsel for the Claimant requested
the Tribunal to decide on the Claimant‟s Application dated 3 rd March 2007 for
making an interim Award. Owing to the fact that the Respondent had not filed
its reply to the said Application despite an order made in that behalf, at the
request of the Respondent, the Respondent was given further four weeks time to
file its reply. The matter was listed for 3rd May 2008.
22. In my order of 3rd May 2008 I noted as follows:
"1. Vide my order dated 15th March, 2008 the Respondent was given 4 weeks
time to file its reply to the Claimant‟s application dated 3 rd March, 2007 for
OMP No.721/2009 Page 9
making an interim award. The 4 weeks time expired on 19 th April, 2008.
However, no reply has been filed. This was the third opportunity given to the
Respondent.
2. This morning, Mr. Ajay K. Dutta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
Respondent has submitted that owing to lack of availability of personnel in the
Respondent‟s organization, he was not able to receive instructions for preparing
a reply and he has prayed for further time to do so.
3. In my order of 15th March, 2008 it was made quite clear that if no reply is
filed by the Respondent within the time allowed, the application will be heard.
Accordingly, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Counsel for the Claimant commenced his
arguments on his application. The arguments have been partly heard today.
4. The matter may be taken up for further arguments on 10 th May, 2008 at
10:30 AM in my office."
23. Eventually the arguments on the Application for Interim Award dated
3 March, 2007 were concluded on 26th July 2008 and I made my Interim
rd
Award on 1st December 2008. The next hearing was slated for 6th December
2008.
24. On 6th December 2008 the parties agreed to a time-table with regard to
submission of their respective affidavits by way of evidence. The Claimant
stated that they would file their affidavit by 22 nd December 2008 and the
Respondent stated that they would do the same by 6 th January 2009. Both
parties were requested to intimate me in writing whether they would wish to
cross-examine any of the witnesses of the other party. The next date was fixed
for 10th January 2009 which, owing to my unavailability, was postponed to 17 th
January 2009.
25. On 17th January 2009 Mr. Sharma appearing for the Claimant stated
that he would not be filing any affidavit by way of evidence and would
prosecute his case on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record. In this view
of the matter I closed the Claimant‟s evidence. The Respondent sought further
three weeks time to file its affidavit by way of evidence. It was recorded in the
said order that "if the Respondent do not file any affidavit by way of evidence of
Mr. Sharma does not wish to cross-examine them, the next date of hearing will
be treated as the date for final arguments in the matter." The next date was fixed
for 21st February 2009, which was later postponed to 14th March 2009.
OMP No.721/2009 Page 10
26. At this stage, on 6th March 2009 the Respondent filed an Application
under Section 23(3) of the said Act praying that it be permitted to amend its
Reply dated 29th / 30th May 2006.
27. On being asked to explain the inordinate delay in making the
Application after so much water had flown under the bridge, Mr. Malhotra
respondent by saying that the Respondent was under the bonafide impression
that they had already given the details of set off in the Reply since in the heading
of the Reply they had stated "Reply to the Statement of Claim and Set Off on
behalf of the Respondent". He submitted that the person who had signed the
Reply (Mr. Sridhar) was under the impression that the details of Set Off had
been included in the Reply.
28. I consider this explanation rather strange. The Application for seeking
amendment of the Reply is supported by an affidavit of one Mr. Chander
Prakash Vohra, who asserts that he is well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case and that the Application under Section 23(3) has been
drafted under his instructions. Prior to this Application Mr. Vohra has not
submitted any affidavit in these proceedings and nor has he been present at any
hearing in the matter. It appears to me that prior to this Affidavit , Mr. Vohra
was not even dealing with this case. Even the Application does not contain any
averment as to who in the Respondent Company entertained the "bonafide
impression" that the details and particulars of Set Off had been raised in the
Reply. Though during oral submissions Mr. Malhotra submitted that it was Mr.
Sridhar who was under the said impression, the Respondent chose not to file his
affidavit. The Application also does not contain any such averment. In any
case, the Reply dated 29th /30th May 2006 was submitted in these
proceedings through a reputed firm of lawyers and from time to time the
Respondent has been represented by several counsel as well as by its in-
house legal representatives. It is therefore unbelievable that between 29 th
May 2006 (when the Respondent filed its Reply) and 6 th March 2009 i.e.
nearly three years no one (i.e the Counsels and the in-house legal
representatives involved in the proceedings)noticed that no Set Off had
been pleaded in the Reply even though the claim has been hotly contested.
29. The fact that in a reply dated 19th December 2001 to the Claimant‟s
notice dated 20th November 2001 the Respondent had alluded to a „claim‟
against the Claimant only goes to show that the Claimant was conscious of the
existence of its claim. It is therefore surprising that the absence of the „claim‟ by
way of Set Off in the Reply was noticed for the first time nearly three years after
the submission of their Reply in these proceedings even though several eminent
and learned lawyers (Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rohit Puri,
OMP No.721/2009 Page 11
Advocate and Mr. Ajay K. Dutta, Advocate) and at least two in-house legal
representatives (Mr. S.N.Sridhar-GM Legal and Mr. Ankit Singhal-Corporate
Legal Officer) were involved in the drafting of the replies and in the prosecution
of the case on behalf of the Respondent.
30. It is also noteworthy that the present Application has been made after
crossing several important landmarks in the proceedings and, in fact nearly at the
end of the proceedings when the matter was listed for final arguments-since the
Respondent had chosen not to file any affidavit by way of evidence. The
Respondent has participated in the proceedings throughout and infact willingly
submitted to the time-table for filing affidavits by way of evidence, cross-
examination of the witnesses etc. on 6th December 2008 and 17th January 2009.
In my opinion, having regard to the fact that the Claimant‟s evidence already
stood closed and, in the absence of any affidavit by way of evidence filed by the
Respondent, the date of 14th March 2009 was the last date for the parties to make
their oral submissions on the Claimant‟s claim.
31. I am of the opinion that not only the Application dated 6 th March 2009
belated but tantamount to a gross abuse of the process. The said
Application, if allowed, would cause severe prejudice to the Claimant,
inasmuch as it would virtually amount to re-opening the whole case and
setting the clock back to the stage of filing of pleadings itself. It would also
mean filing of fresh documents and evidence, which right of the Respondent
stood closed on 11th November 2006. This, in my opinion, is wholly
unacceptable. I also find it odd for the Respondent to contend that "the
proceedings are at the initial stage as evidence of the parties have not
commenced" in the face, inter-alia, of my Order dated 17th January, 2009 closing
the Claimant‟s evidence.
32. I may further add, that though in the heading of the Reply "set off" was
mentioned, there was no pleading at all that effect in that document. Further, had
the Respondent‟s impression been "bonafide" that the plea of set off had been
included in the Reply, they would have taken care at least to file some
evidence/documents to back up their claim of set-off. In my opinion the case
now sought to be made out is nothing but an afterthought.
33. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the unexplained delay of
nearly three years in making the application to amend its defence, the
Respondent‟s Application deserves to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the
same is hereby dismissed. The issue of cost will be adverted to in the final
Award."
OMP No.721/2009 Page 12
9. It is, therefore, quite clear that there were delaying tactics by the
present petitioner before the Arbitrator. Amendment which is granted is not a
matter of right but the bonafides of the applicant who seeks for amendment has
also necessarily to be examined. This becomes all the more relevant in the facts
of the present case in view of the scathing indictment of the petitioner by the
Arbitrator in the order dated 04.4.09. Clearly the amendment application was
wholly without merit and there was no basis of any set off as was being urged
by the respondent and the application was simply filed malafidely to delay the
proceedings before the Arbitrator. I, therefore, do not find any ground
whatsoever to hold that the order dated 04.4.09 is in any manner erroneous.
Lastly, I may state that it was contended that an adjournment ought to have been
granted by the Arbitrator on 04.4.09, since the same was asked for. An
adjournment is not a matter of right because an adjournment also necessarily
affects the other party to the proceedings. The facts of the case shout loud and
clear as to the ulterior motives in filing of the amendment and the consequential
prejudice to the respondent herein and thus the adjournment was rightly refused
by the Arbitrator and no fault can be found with such action of the Arbitrator.
10. The Arbitrator has given proper reasons for awarding of the claim
and which is pithily stated in paras 7 to 10 which are reproduced hereunder:
"7. Insofar as the Claimant is concerned it has clearly established:
OMP No.721/2009 Page 13
a. That the Claimant duly telecast the programmes „Aaj Tak‟ and
„Subah Aaj Tak‟. In fact there is no plea of the Respondent that the telecast did
not take place. On the contrary the Respondent‟s letter dated 8th March 2001
and 26th March 2001 (Exhibit C-14) establish that the telecast did take place
though instead of 10.00 pm they were telecast at 10.05 pm.
b. That the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant for the said
telecast @ Rs.1,33,875 per telecast (i.e. Rs.1,57,500 less Rs.23,625 being the
Respondent‟s commission @ 15%). The said figure has been arrived at upon
reference to the Commercial Contract executed by the Respondent for the period
1.10.2000 to 31.10.2000 and from 1.11.2000 to 30.11.2000 being Exhibits C-2
& C-3.
c. That there is nothing in the Accreditation Agreement or in the
Commercial Contracts that makes the payment to the Claimant dependant upon
the Respondent receiving payment from its Clients.
8. In these circumstances I am of the view that the Respondent is liable to
pay to the Claimant the sum of Rs.46,85,295 being the sum owed to the
Claimant for a period of 15 days in October of 2000 and for 20 days in the
month of November 2000 which it has referred to in its letter of 8th March 2000.
The said sum is calculated as follows:
a. October 2000: 15 days X 1,33,875= 20,08,125
b. November 2000: 20 days X 1,33,875= 26,77,500
Total: a + b = Rs.46,85,625.
9. I am also of the view that the Claimant has wrongfully withheld the said
sums from the date they became due.
10. I therefore award to the Claimant the sum of Rs.46,85,625 with interest
thereon at the agreed contractual rate of interest i.e. 18% per annum. For the
sake of convenience, the 18% interest on the sum of Rs.20,08,125 is calculated
from 1st November 2000 till the date of this Award i.e. Rs.31,89,782.78 and on
the sum of Rs.26,77,500 is calculated from 1 st December 2000 until the date of
this Award i.e. Rs.42,13,431.37."
11. The right to challenge an Award under Section 34 is a limited one.
The petitioner has to show a clear cut illegality or violation of the provisions of
the contract between the parties or an ex-facie perversity in the Award. I do not
find any illegality or perversity whatsoever in the Award in view of the
OMP No.721/2009 Page 14
aforesaid discussion and there is also no issue of violation of any contractual
provision by the Arbitrator.
12. The present objection petition is therefore dismissed with costs of
Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner in favour of the Registrar General of this
Court for being utilized towards Juvenile Justice Fund within a period of four
weeks from today.
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J
December 16, 2009
Ne
OMP No.721/2009 Page 15
