The judiciary's role in arbitration is to ensure courts do not reassess merits but identify manifest errors and whether vital evidence was overlooked by the arbitral tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. This is an Appeal filed under the provisions of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging the order dated 16 November 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Arbitration Petition No.327/2006, in which Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal was challenged under Section 34 of the Act. By the impugned order dated 16 November 2006, the learned Single Judge has allowed Arbitration Petition No.327/2006 and has set aside the Arbitral Award, by which three claims of the Appellant towards electricity charges, price variation on account of increase in minimum wages and extra cost of excavation were allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that Konkan Railways Corporation Ltd. (KRCL) a public utility undertaking of the Government of India invited tenders for construction of B.G. Single Line Tunnel (Tunnel No.20 – Karbude Tunnel) in Ratnagiri (North). The Appellant was a successful bidder and was issued Letter of Acceptance dated 25 June 1991. Agreement dated 9 July 1991 was executed for construction of the tunnel walls. The work was completed after grant of several extensions. On 14 September 1998, Appellant submitted the final bill and on 22 May 2001, a further amended final bill was submitted. The Appellant invoked arbitration clause raising disputes for total 25 claims totaling to Rs.15,62,29,315/-. The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 16 May 2003. Appellant- Claimant filed Statement of Claim, which was resisted by Respondent by filing its Written Statement. After considering the documentary and oral evidence, the Tribunal made an Award on 14 January 2006 awarding sum of Rs.4,39,38,389/- in favour of the Appellant by fully accepting some of the claims, partly accepting some claims and rejecting some claims.

3. Respondent accepted the Arbitral Award in respect of Claim Nos.1, 2, 7, 10, 19, 21 and 22 and decided to challenge the Award only in respect of the Award of Claim Nos.5, 6 and 8. Accordingly, Respondent filed Arbitration Petition No. 327/2006 in this Court challenging the Award dated 14 January 2006 to the limited extent of award of Claim No.5 (Refund of recoveries towards electricity charges), Claim No.6 (Reimbursement of difference between price variation on account of increase in minimum wages) and Claim No.8 (Extra cost in excavation of soft strata of Tunnel from Bhoke Portal side). By the impugned order dated 16 November 2006, the learned Single Judge has allowed Arbitration Petition No. 327/2006 and has set aside the arbitral award only to the extent of Claim Nos. 5, 6 and 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 16 November 2006, the Appellant-Claimant has filed the present Appeal under the provisions of Section 37 of the Act.

4. Mr. Amrut Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act while interfering with the Arbitral Award. That the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal was based on judicial approach and does not suffer from the vice of perversity or irrationality and in support, he would place reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in Associate Builders Versus. Delhi Development Authority , [ (2015) 3 SCC 49 ] He would further submit that the scope of appeal under Section 37