OMML-SPML Vs. NHPC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated December 16, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad in CIS No. ARB-63-2020. The learned Additional District Judge relied on the decision reported in 2009 (5) SCC 142 Kwality Mfg. Corpn. Vs. Central Warehousing Corpn. to come to the finding that the Arbitral Tribunal dtd. 29/2/2020 by way of majority award took a plausible view which did not merit any interference. The majority award being neither against the public policy of India nor being vitiated by patent illegality or error appearing on the face of the award, on the ground of erroneous application of law and re-appreciation of the evidence, whether oral or documentary, was the reason the award was not interfered with. The relevant portion relied on by the learned Additional District Judge in Central Warehousing Corpn. (supra) is reproduced herein below:-

(2.) The learned Additional District Judge also relied on the case of Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49 and Saanggyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited Vs. National Highways Authority of India reported in 2019 (15) SCC 131 to come to the finding that neither any public policy of India has been violated nor has any patent illegality been caused by the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Relevant portion of Associate Builders (supra) relied upon by him is reproduced herein below:-

(3.) The relevant extract from Saanggyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited (supra) is reproduced herein below:-