P Vishnu Vardhan Reddy vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 3301 Kant

                             -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

        COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.83 OF 2022

BETWEEN:


P. VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY
S/O C.VENKATAMUNI REDDY
AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.9
BEHIND SANDHYA TENT
OLD MADIWALA
BENGLAURU-560 068
                                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI SANJAY G, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGLAURU-560 002
                                         ...RESPONDENT

(By SRI RAMU .S, ADVOCATE)

      THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT R/W SECTION 13(1)(A)
OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDERS DATED 13/12/2021 PASSED IN COM.A.S.NO. 45/2018
ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-83) AND CONSEQUENTLY
SET ASIDE THE ARBITRAL AWARD DATED 07/03/2017 PASSED
IN A.C.NO. 146/2015 BY THE LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR TO
THE EXTENT OF THE CLAIM DENIED TO THE APPELLANT.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ .J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                             -2-


                         JUDGMENT

1. The above appeal is filed under Section 37 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the

order passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil &

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru dated 13.12.2021 in

Com.A.S.No.45/2018. The said Com.A.S.No.45/2018

had been filed challenging the arbitral award passed

by learned Sole Arbitrator in A.C.No.146/2015.

2. The appellant herein was the claimant before the

learned Sole Arbitrator. The learned Sole Arbitrator

has partially allowed the claim petition filed by the

appellant. It is aggrieved by certain claims not being

allowed that Com.A.S.No.45/2018 had been filed by

the appellant before the Commercial Court under

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (for short 'A & C Act').

3. The grievance of the appellant as could be seen from

the appeal memo is that the learned Sole Arbitrator

had committed an error in not considering certain

invoices and bills while calculating the total mileage

covered by each one of the vehicles on a daily basis.

If the said mileage had been properly calculated, the

appellant would have been entitled to a higher

amount.

4. The second ground raised is that the learned Sole

Arbitrator has committed an error in drawing adverse

interference that the claimant not having disputed the

log books maintained by the respondent, the said log

books would have to be taken as correct and proper.

5. Thirdly, it is contended that escalation has not been

granted in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted

that the contract being a commercial contract,

escalation ought to have been granted.

6. The fourth ground is that the variations as regards

ESI and PF have not been taken into account by the

learned Sole Arbitrator.

7. The fifth ground is that the Bata charges have not

been taken into consideration.

8. The sixth ground is that interest has not been

awarded in respect of the claim prior to the same

being made.

9. These being the grounds to challenge the Arbitral

Award dated 07.03.2017, it is contended that the

Commercial Court, exercising jurisdiction under

Section 34 of the said Act, ought to have appreciated

the above contentions and set aside the award and

should have allowed the portion of the claim petition

which had not been allowed by the learned Sole

Arbitrator.

10. There is a very limited jurisdiction under the A & C

Act both under Section 34 and under Section 37 in

respect of a challenge to an Arbitral award for

interference either by the Section 34 Court or the

Section 37 Court.

11. The ground being circumscribed and contained under

Section 34 of the A & C Act, neither the Section 34

Court can act as the First Appellate Court nor the

Section 37 Court can act as the Second Appellate

Court and interfere in respect of an arbitral award

passed.

12. The grounds which have been raised by the appellant

before the Section 34 Court which are reproduced

hereinabove are mainly relating to the appreciation of

evidence which is not a ground which is available

under Section 34 of the Act nor can the Section 34

Court, as observed above, appreciate or re-appreciate

the evidence which is on record. The only grounds

which are available are those which are circumscribed

under Section 34 of the said Act as held by the Apex

Court in the case of "Associate Builders vs. Delhi

Development Authority" reported in (2015) 3

SCC 49.

13. The grounds which are relevant to challenge the

arbitral award is that the award should be patently

illegal and contrary to the public policy as per Section

34(2) of the said Act. Neither before the Commercial

Court nor before this Court, the appellant has been

able to establish any patent illegality except to

contend that factual aspects have not been taken into

consideration by the learned Sole Arbitrator. The

manner in which the allegations have been made

against the Arbitrator also needs to be deprecated.

14. The appellant not being able to make out any ground

either before the Section 34 Court or before this

Court, we find that there is no error or infirmity in the

award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator or the

Section 34 Court. The order passed in

Com.A.S.No.45/2018 is proper and correct and does

not require any interference.

15. The appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

VM