The scope of interference with an arbitral award is confined to the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and proper reasons must be provided in the judgment.

ORDER :

1. This appeal takes an exception to judgment dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Commercial Court by which objections preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) have been dismissed.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of construction and of primarily designing and building steel structures. The appellant was awarded a contract of Engineering Procurement and Construction Contract for expansion of Bangalore International Airport Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the BIAL' for short) on 31.05.2011. The scope of the work involved Engineering Procurement and Construction work of three storied RCC Structure, Structural Steel Roof with Roof coverings on east -west and southern sides of existing terminal building and steel canopy on the northern side. The appellant sub contracted the structural Steel Roof work to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.110 Crores. A letter of intent dated 29.09.2011 (Ex.C3) was issued. The aforesaid letter of intent was amended on 15.10.2011.

3. Thereafter, a tripartite agreement dated 25.01.2012 (Ex.R1) was executed between BIAL, the appellant and the respondent viz., the sub contractor. Under the agreement, the respondent had to complete the work within 10 months from 04.10.2011 i.e., upto 03.08.2012. The possession of the site was handed over to the appellant on 31.08.2013.

4. During the execution of the work, in order to secure the progress of the work, the appellant and the respondent agreed that the appellant would secure the structural steel and consumables required by the respondent for the contract work and that the appellant may engage the services of other sub contractors in this behalf on payment of requisite charges by the Respondent.

5. However, there was delay in completion of the work. The disputes arose between the parties. Thereupon the respondent filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an. The aforesaid application was allowed by this court by an order dated 03.09.2014 and a sole was appointed. The proceeding before the commenced on 13.12.2014. The parties filed respective pleadings and adduced oral and documentary evidence. The appellant examined three of its officers as RW1 to RW3 and adduced documents viz., Ex.R1 to Ex.R72 in evidence, whereas, the respondent examined three of its officers as CW1 to CW3 and tendered documents viz., EX.C1 to Ex.C278 in evidence.

6. The arbitral tribunal passed an award on 06.02.2016 and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,32,83,419/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and cost of Rs.12,00,000/-as well as stamp duty of Rs.3,26,985/-paid by respondent No.1 on the award under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court vide judgment dated 05.12.2020 has dismissed the objections preferred by the appellant. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this court to objections preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act submitted that though various objections were raised, the Commercial Court in a cryptic and cavalier manner without adverting to the objections raised by the appellant has dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Act. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned judgment, the Commercial Court has neither adverted tot eh grounds nor the contentions raised by the appellant. It is also argued that interest at the rate of 18% has been awarded for pendente lite and for a period thereafter, without assigning any reasons, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Learned Senior counsel has taken us through the impugned judgment of t