D N DESHPANDE Vs. TATA FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the Award dated 20th April, 1994 filed in this Court on the ground that the Sole Arbitrator did not properly consider the merits of the claim of the respondents and that the Arbitrator proceeded with the proceedings of the reference even after filing of the suit by the petitioner in the Civil Court at Ambajogai challenging the agreement under which the claim in arbitration proceedings was made by the respondents against the petitioner.

(2.) AN award is not vulnerable to any challenge thereto. The ambit and scope of challenge to an award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, the Act) has now been laid down by the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court and other High Courts. Needless to say that when an Arbitrator is made the final Arbitrator of the dispute between the parties, an award is not open to the challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts. The appreciation of evidence by the Arbitrator is never a matter which the Court questions or considers in the proceedings under section 30 of the Act. An arbitrator is the sole Judge of the quality and the quantity of the evidence and it will not be for the Court to take upon itself the task of being a judge on the evidence before the arbitrator. The merits of the claim of the respondents against the petitioner in the Arbitration proceedings have been considered and adjudicated by the Arbitrator. In the present proceedings, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the adjudication of the Arbitrator and it is not permissible for this Court to go into the merits of the claim of the respondents against the petitioner which have been considered and adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator. The said Award cannot be set aside on the ground that the Arbitrator has wrongly awarded the amount which has been awarded to the respondents.

(3.) SINCE the petition is devoid of any merit, it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Hence, the petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of the petition.