Fresh grounds cannot be raised for the first time in appeal against a Section 34 order.

A fresh factual or contractual contention cannot be introduced for the first time in appeal against an order under Section 34 when it was not specifically urged before the court below. The appellate challenge remains confined to the grounds recorded in the impugned order, and a party cannot enlarge its case by relying on belated written submissions or a new clause-based argument. On that basis, the new contention was held not entertainable and the dismissal of the Section 34 petition was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a new contention based on Clause 39(h) and the effect of belated written submissions could be raised for the first time in appeal against the order dismissing the Section 34 petition.

Analysis: The appellant sought to rely on a plea that the arbitral tribunal ought to have considered its written submissions and the contractual prohibition against idle charges. That contention had not been urged before the Single Judge as a specific ground, and the challenge before the appellate court was confined to the two grounds recorded in the impugned order. A party cannot be permitted to enlarge the scope of the challenge at the appellate stage by introducing a fresh factual or contractual argument not advanced below.

Conclusion: The new contention was not entertainable in appeal and the order dismissing the Section 34 petition called for no interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the dismissal of the Section 34 petition was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A ground not specifically urged before the court below cannot be raised for the first time in appeal to challenge an arbitral award or the order affirming it.

---