Facts: The Respondent, Alka Chandewar, and the Petitioner, Shamshul Ishrar Khan, were partners in a firm, M/s Saras Developers. While a 1997 deed established Alka’s share at 80%, Khan alleged that subsequent deeds in 2002 and 2003 diluted her stake and eventually recorded her retirement. Alka claimed these later deeds were forged and issued a dissolution notice in 2008. During the subsequent arbitration, Khan participated for four years but eventually withdrew after his request for the Arbitrator’s recusal was rejected. The Arbitrator proceeded ex-parte, found the disputed deeds to be fabricated based on RTI documents and Registrar of Firms records, and awarded Alka Rs. 7.39 crores plus interest. Simultaneously, a contempt petition was filed against Khan for violating interim orders by alienating partnership assets without permission.Procedural Posture: The Petitioner (Khan) challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Bombay High Court. The High Court also heard the related Contempt Petition No. 102 of 2015.Issue: 1. Whether the arbitral award was vitiated by patent illegality or perversity for ignoring evidence (Income Tax returns) and misapplying limitation laws. 2. Whether the Petitioner’s conduct amounted to contempt of court.Holding: 1. No, the award was not perverse; the Section 34 petition was dismissed. 2. Yes, the Petitioner’s conduct was contumacious, but he was given an opportunity to purge the contempt.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Arbitrator’s finding on forgery was based on a sound appreciation of evidence, including the Registrar’s refusal to record the disputed deeds. Regarding the monetary assessment, the Court held that since Khan withheld audited financial statements, the Arbitrator was entitled to make a "best judgment assessment" based on admitted sales turnover. The Court clarified that Income Tax returns are for tax compliance and do not supersede audited accounts or commercial reality. On limitation, the Court held that for partnership dissolution, the three-year period runs from the date of dissolution, not from the date individual sales occurred. Regarding contempt, the Court found Khan’s alienation of flats despite prohibitory orders to be a "gross defiance" of justice, ordering him to deposit the full awarded amount to prove his remorse.