DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD. Vs. PRANATHI RANGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a sole petitioner and there are three respondents in this original petition.

(2.) This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (26 of 1996), hereinafter referred to as 'A&C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity laying a challenge to an award dated 10.04.2018 made by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by a sole arbitrator. This award dated 10.04.2018 made by a sole arbitator constituting the Arbitral Tribunal shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity. To be noted, sole arbitrator has been arrayed as respondent No.3 in this petition before me.

(3.) Before I proceed with this petition, it is deemed appropriate to mention at the outset that this petition being one under Section 34 of A&C Act is neither an appeal nor a revision, it is not a review and it is a mere challenge to an arbitral award. More importantly, minimum judicial intervention in Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanisms ('ADR' for brevity), in my considered opinion, is the salutary principle and sublime philosophy underlying the scheme of A&C Act and more particularly, Sections 34 and 37 of A&C Act. It is in this backdrop that this petition under Section 34 of A&C Act is being examined.