SHYAM SUNDER Vs. SURENDER SINGH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present Appeal under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as "A&C Act"], the Appellant assails the correctness of the Judgment dtd. 23/12/2025 [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Judgment"] passed by the learned District Judge in a petition instituted under Sec. 34 [hereinafter referred to as the "Sec. 34 Petition"] of the A&C Act2. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned District Judge has declined interference with the Arbitral Award dtd. 3/6/2025 [hereinafter referred to as the "Award"] and has upheld the Sec. 37 Sec. 34 same.

(2.) The challenge laid by the Appellant in the Sec. 34 Petition was directed against the findings returned by the learned Sole Arbitrator [hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"] in respect of its claims arising out of a Collaboration Agreement executed between the parties. The Appellant contended that the Award suffered from patent illegality, inasmuch as material evidence had been ignored, findings had been returned in the absence of proof, and reliance had been placed upon documents which were neither duly proved nor admissible in evidence. The learned District Judge, however, found no ground to interfere and dismissed the Sec. 34 Petition.

(3.) Since the present Appeal arises under Sec. 37 against an order refusing to set aside the Award, the scope of interference is necessarily circumscribed. The question that arises for consideration is whether the learned District Judge committed any error warranting appellate interference while declining to set aside the Award.