Facts/Background:

• Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) – the lessee was the Appellant.
• M/s Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, the lessor, was the Respondent.
• As the lessor, M/s Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgrunar leased a plot of land to Appellant, the lessee, for 29 years under a lease deed dated September 20, 2005, which contained an arbitration clause for dispute resolution.
• The Appellant established a retail outlet on the premises and appointed the lessor as the dealer under a dealership agreement dated 15th November 2006, valid for 15 years, extendable by 1 year, containing an arbitration clause.
• The Appellant identified irregularities in the retail outlet's operations and subsequently directed the dealer to cease sales and supplies, which resulted in the termination of the dealership agreement and a demand for the dealer to vacate the premises.
• The dealer challenged the termination, leading to arbitration. The Arbitrator increased the lease rent to Rs.10,000 with 10% increases every three years, upheld the dealership termination, denied restoration, and rejected the claim of Rs.45,28,000 with interest.
• Appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the District Judge, Pune, seeking to set aside the award. The District Judge partially allowed the petition, upholding the rent increase but setting aside the reduction in the lease period.
• Both the Respondent and Appellant filed appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By a judgment dated 11th September 2015, the High Court partly allowed the Respondent’s appeal and dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, upholding the award.
• Hence the present appeal.
  

Main Issue:

• Was the Arbitral Award enhancing the lease rent and reducing the lease period, passed by an Arbitrator without jurisdiction under the Lease Agreement, valid under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996?