Arbitral Tribune cannot grant relief contrary to express contract terms or based on equitable considerations dehors the agreement.

The Appellant and Respondent entered into a Dealership Agreement on 10.10.2005 for the sale of motorcycles and spare parts in Jammu.

Following disputes, the Appellant invoked arbitration.

During the proceedings, the Respondent terminated the dealership on 04.06.2007.

The Sole Arbitrator, via an Award dated 16.04.2012, directed the Respondent to buy back unsold stock and refund the price with 16% interest, citing "expected profits" and "human conduct".

The Respondent challenged this under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act").

The Learned Single Judge set aside the Award on 30.01.2019, finding it contrary to the contract.

The Appellant moved the High Court in appeal under Section 37 of the Act.

Whether the learned Single Judge exceeded the limited jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act by setting aside the Arbitral Award.

Whether the Arbitral Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction by granting relief (buy-back of stock) not expressly provided for in the Dealership Agreement.

Whether the Section 34 petition was barred by limitation.

The Court applied Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, highlighting the circumscribed nature of appellate interference.

It strictly enforced Section 28(3) of the Act, which mandates that an Arbitral Tribunal must decide disputes in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Furthermore, it applied Section 28(2), which prohibits a tribunal from deciding ex aequo et bono (based on equity) unless expressly authorized by the parties.

The court also referenced the principle that an arbitrator cannot rewrite the contract or grant relief not contemplated by the bargain.

The Court observed that under Sections 5 and 7 of the Agreement, the relationship was on a "principal-to-principal" basis, and ownership of goods passed to the dealer upon payment.

Clause 12 of the Agreement granted the Respondent a discretionary right to repurchase stock but did not impose a mandatory obligation.

The Court reasoned that the Arbitrator ignored these express terms and instead based the Award on "broad notions of fairness" and "human conduct," which is prohibited under Section 28 of the Act.

The Court found that the Single Judge did not "re-appreciate evidence" but correctly identified a jurisdictional error where the Award was ex facie contrary to the contract.

Regarding limitation, the Court accepted the factual finding that the signed Award was received on 08.11.2012, making the filing on 22.11.2012 timely under Section 34(3).

The Court affirmed that an Arbitrator cannot grant equitable relief dehors the contract.

The Section 34 petition was held to be within the limitation period.

The Impugned Judgment was upheld.