On January 14, 2019 the High Court at Bombay passed a judgment in the matter of: John Distilleries Pvt. Limited v. Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Limited (A.P. No. 874 of 2015).

Issue:

The scope of evidence in a Section 34 application before the High Court was discussed in the instant case. 

Facts in brief

The Petitioner Company is in the business of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). The Respondent entered into an Agreement on March 1, 2007 for manufacturing liquor products of the Petitioner Company in Maharashtra. Disputes arose with respect to the payment of the consignment and arbitration commenced. The Learned Sole Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 64,08,685.82  and observed that the testimony of the Petitioner’s witness shows that the petitioner had never objected to the Respondent raising bills at the enhanced rate and also towards the petitioner’s bottling charges. The Learned Arbitrator had also recorded that there was a concession between both the parties as far as the revision of the charges was concerned.

This award has been challenged in the present arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’).    

Judgement

The Court observed that the whole claim considered by the Learned Arbitrator proceeded on the premise that the outstanding amount was due at the foot of the account and that there was sufficient evidence available including minutes of meetings held between the parties. 

The Court dismissed the petition and held that there was no merit in the same and also observed that “The Learned Arbitrator's view in this behalf is clearly a possible view, which is supported by evidence. It does not suggest a finding based on no evidence. As long as there is some evidence to sustain a finding, the challenge court under Section 34 of the Act does not interfere with the Award. Sufficiency of evidence is something only the arbitral forum can rule on.”