1 APP 616 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.616 OF 2003 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.73 OF 2001 Mrs.Sushila Rungta (Clg. No.649), Certified Member of the Bombay Stock Exchange, Adult, Occu : Business, Having office at the Stock Exchange, Mumbai – 400 001. .....Appellant V/s. Mrs.Mita Sheth, Adult, Occu : Business, R/o 603/604, Elizabeth Apartment, Balasheth Madhukar Road, Elphinstone, Mumbai – 400 013. ..... Respondent Mr.J.P.Sen a/w Mr.J.S.Chandnani, for the appellant. Mr.Rajeev Narula a/w Mr.Dasgupta i/by Mr.Prasad Das, for the respondent. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) :- 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16-06-2003 in Arbitration Petition No.73 of 2001, by which the learned Single Judge set aside the Award passed by the Arbitrator and the claim made by the respondent 2 APP 616 of 2003 herein before the Arbitrator is awarded by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent (present petitioner) is liable to pay an amount of Rs.26,13,404/- to the present respondent. The petitioner who was the original respondent in the Arbitration Petition, has challenged the said order, by way of this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has re-appreciated the evidence as if the learned Single Judge was exercising appellate jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge committed grave error in setting aside the order of Arbitrator. He states that in any case, the learned Single Judge while setting aside the Award passed by the Arbitrator, could not have awarded the claim raised by the respondent before the Arbitrator, as the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge was limited qua setting aside the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. In order to buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mcdermott International Inc. V/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 181, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that : 52. The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is 3 APP 616 of 2003 envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court’s jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it. 3. It is required to be noted that the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has been delivered after the decision of the learned Single Judge and naturally, the learned Single Judge had no benefit of the said judgment. The Court while deciding petition under Section 34 of the Act, is required to consider the grounds mentioned in the said Section for setting aside the order and no further relief can be granted while setting aside the Award. In view of the same, it is not necessary to examine the matter in greater detail and only on the aforesaid point, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as further relief granted by the learned Single Judge could not have been granted. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide the Arbitration petition afresh. Since the Arbitration petition is of 2001, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the Arbitration petition within a period of three months from today. It is needless to say that the learned Single 4 APP 616 of 2003 Judge may decide the Arbitration Petition on its own merits and without being influenced by the observations made in this order. All the contentions of both the sides are expressly kept open to be agitated before the learned Single Judge. 4. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )