pvr apl785-nm1711 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1711 OF 2010 IN APPEAL (L)NO.785 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.225 OF 2008 1.Palador Pictures Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants vs. UTV Software Communications Ltd. ...Respondent --- Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Udawadia & Udeshi, for Appellants. Mr.Snehal Shah i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 22nd March,2011 P.C.: 1. By consent of parties, notice of motion granted in terms of prayer clause (a). (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.) pvr apl785-nm1711 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L)NO.785 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.225 OF 2008 1.Palador Pictures Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants vs. UTV Software Communications Ltd. ...Respondent --- Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Udawadia & Udeshi, for Appellants. Mr.Snehal Shah i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 22nd March,2011 P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7.8.2009 in Arbitration Petition no.225 of 2008. That petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and in that petition an Award made by the learned Arbitrator pvr apl785-nm1711 - 2 - by consent of parties, was challenged. The learned Single Judge has held that under Section 34 of the Act an Award made by the learned Arbitrator as a consequence of parties having arrived at settlement cannot be challenged. The learned Counsel appearing for appellants relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3371. The Supreme Court has held that because of the Explanation below sub-section (2) (b) of Section 34 of the Act, an Award can be challenged under Section 34 of the Act on the ground of fraud. 2. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr. was considering whether an amendment in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Act for addition of pvr apl785-nm1711 - 3 - grounds can be permitted. The Supreme Court was also considering Whether in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, a ground that the Award is vitiated by fraud in making of the Award, can be permitted. The Supreme Court has held that a ground to raise a plea for challenging the Award that the Award was induced or affected by fraud, can be raised. The Supreme Court in that case was not considering the case where the Award was made by consent of the parties. Perusal of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act shows that if during the arbitral proceedings the parties settle the dispute and approach the Arbitrator for recording settlement in the form of Award, the Arbitrator can do so and can make an Award in terms of the settlement between the parties. In the present case, admittedly, the parties settled their dispute and filed consent terms before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator merely accepted the consent terms and made Award in terms of the pvr apl785-nm1711 - 4 - consent terms. The dispute that the consent of the appellant was induced or obtained by fraud by the other side was raised for the first time, according to the learned Counsel appearing for appellant, few days before payment under the Award became due. In our opinion, whether the consent for the settlement of the parties was obtained by fraud or otherwise cannot be a subject matter of challenge in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Act. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly appreciated the question and has declined to interfere with the petition. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.)