2025:HHC:41998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CARBC No.147 of 2025 Decided on: 05.12.2025 Sh. Kuldeep Bedi … Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, filed under under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner has assailed Award dated 18.06.2011, passed by the learned Arbitrator, in terms whereof, the claim of the petitioner-claimant was partly allowed in the following terms:- “(i) An award in the amount of Rs.80,301/- in favour of the contractor-claimant and against the PSEB-respondent. (ii) An award of interest @ 9% per annum in the amount of Rs.80,301/- w.e.f. 12th January, 2007, the date on which the reference was made to this Arbitral Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and future interest @ 12%/per annum from the date of award till the date of payment. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:41998 (iii) An award of interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of security in the amount of Rs.28,371/- in favour of the contractor in respect of both the works i.e. work order No.46 and 44 from the date of reference to this Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. i.e. 12th January, 2007 till the date of the payment.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Arbitrator has fallen in grave error and has committed an illegality in terms of the impugned Award by not appreciating that the petitioner had appointed his brother as his General Power of Attorney to execute the works on his behalf, however, this did not confer any authority or power upon his brother to receive the payments as no payments could have been released in the name of the General Power of Attorney holder. On this count, it has been prayed that as the Award is against the Public Policy of India, the same calls for intervention. No other point was urged. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no perversity in the Award under challenge and further as no case is made out in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as to the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Act, therefore also, the petition deserves dismissal. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner 3 2025:HHC:41998 and also learned Counsel for the respondents and have carefully gone through the Award under challenge. 5. In order to adjudicate the issue that has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel, this Court would like to refer to the relevant contents of the General Power of Attorney which are quoted in the Award itself. In term in terms of the Award, Para-2 of the Special Power of Attorney authorized the Special Power of Attorney to receive payments on account of the work in question. Relevant portion of the Attorney which is quoted in the Award reads as under:- “To put signature on all relevant documents and received payment from the Authorities.” 6. It is evident in terms of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that as far as the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is concerned, the Court is to interfere with the domestic Award if the decision of learned Arbitrator is found to be perverse or is found to be so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at it. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that an Award without reasons would suffer from patent illegality and an Award passed by learned Arbitrator not within his jurisdiction or violating a fundamental principle of natural justice also suffers from patent illegality. Hon’ble Supreme 4 2025:HHC:41998 Court also held that if learned Arbitrator wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits an error of jurisdiction. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the Award is rendered perverse or irrational where the findings are based on no evidence, based on irrelevant material, or ignores vital evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the Hiigh Court does not sit in appeal over the Arbitral Award and the reason for this is that when the parties have chosen to avail an alternative mechanism for dispute resolution, then they must be left to reconcile themselves to the wisdom of the decision of the arbitrator and the role of the Court should be restricted to the bare minimum. Interference will be justified only in cases of commission of misconduct by the arbitrator which can find manifestation in different forms including exercise of legal perversity by the Arbitrator. 7. During the hearing of this petition, it could not be demonstrated that the finding returned by the learned Arbitrator to this effect were either perverse or not borne out from the record. That being so, in light of the fact that the Attorney Holder was authorized by the present petitioner, inter alia, to put signature on all relevant documents and receive payments from the Authority and once the Authorities had made payments to the Special Power of 5 2025:HHC:41998 Attorney holder in light of the said contents of the Special Power of Attorney, the finding to this effect returned in the Award cannot be faulted with. 8. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as this Court sees no reason to interfere with the Award under challenge, present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 05, 2025 (Rishi)