M/S TIRHUT FOOD PRODUCTS, a firm within the meaning of the Indian Partnership Act. 1932, Having Office at Village Bajitpur, PO Sarfuddinpur, District Muzaffarpur 843118, Represented by its Partner Smt. Sunita Chaudhary, W/o Mukesh Kumar, Presetly Residing at Mohalla Chhoti Saraiyaganj, Jawahar Lal Road, PO Head Post Office, Near Chamber of Commerce, PSTown, Muzaffarpur842001. ... ... Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Hrishikesh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh, Advocate and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date : 03022026 Heard Mr. Hrishikesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. This Commercial Appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1996') read with Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2015') for setting aside the judgment dated 23 rd Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.1 of 2025 dt.03022026 2/29 day of July, 2024 passed by learned Additional District JudgeXIV Court, Patna in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 173 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge, XIV Court, Patna has refused to interfere with the arbitral award dated 25th August, 2021 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. Brief Facts of the Case 3. It is a matter of record that the respondent obtained an insurance policy from the appellant who is in the business of general insurance and provides diverse insurance covers to its customers across India. The insurance policy bearing no. 2260088270 and titled 'My Business My Choice Package' from the appellant assured the respondent against loss and damages due to fire and special perils during the period 1st day of August, 2018 to 31st July, 2019. 4. It appears that the Respondent had its factory situated at Bajitpur, P.O. Sarfuddinpur in the district of Muzaffarpur. The policy in question covered the said factory from the various kind of losses arising out of any accidental fire and special perils. 5. Under the general conditions of the policy, there is an arbitration clause being clause no. 11 whereunder the parties agreed inter alia for settlement and compromise of disputes in connection with the policy and it is not in dispute that in terms of Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.1 of 2025 dt.03022026 3/29 clause 11 of the Insurance Policy, in the present case as the dispute arose over the payment of the insurance claim, the parties chose to refer the matter to the learned Arbitral Tribunal. 6. It is the case of the respondent that at about 03:00 AM on 31st December, 2018, due to electric short circuit in the factory, a fire broke out which resulted into death and injuries to some of the respondent's workers. The fire also damaged the respondent's stock, plant, machinery and building at its factory. In terms of the policy conditions, the respondent reported the incident to the appellant and made a claim on account of loss under various heads including stock, building and shed, plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures and fittings and electrical wiring. The total amount