JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1996’) read with Section 13(1-A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (in short referred to as ‘the Act of 2015) for setting aside the judgment dated 30.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIIIth, Patna (hereinafter referred called ‘the learned Court’).

3. By the impugned judgment under appeal, the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the Miscellaneous Arbitration Case No. 171/2019 filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 challenging the award dated 09.07.2019 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.

Brief Facts of the Case

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

The appellant M/S Bihar State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (Govt. of Bihar Undertaking) hereinafter referred to as "BSRDCL", a public sector undertaking owned by the Government of Bihar, floated a tender for implementation of highway Projects, Phase-II, contract package 2, Sakaddi- Chandi Sandesh-Sahar-Bihta-Danvara-Nasriganj Road (SH-81) length 86.80 km awarded the contract to one Patel Engineering Ltd. However, the said contract was terminated by the appellant. Thereafter, the said project was divided into two parts i.e. (1) Sakaddi-Sahar Road section (0 to 44 =44 km) and (2) Sakaddi-Nasriganj Road section (from 44 km to 83.250 =39.25 km).

5. The Respondent is a company inter-alia engaged in construction of road etc. In response to the bids invited by the appellant vide its invitation number BSHP-II/9/SH-81dated 19.01.2015 for improvement/ up-gradation of balance work in Sakadi-Nasriganj Road section (from 44 km to 83.250= 39.25 km), the respondent/claimants vide its letter dated 28.02.2015 submitted its bid for an amount of Rs. 113,82,30,756.28/-. The said bid price through competitive bidding was accepted by the appellant "BSRDCL" vide its office letter number BSRDC LTD. 1546/2014/ (Part-1)/2015-1495 and accordingly, a letter of acceptance dated 19.06.2015 ("LOA") was issued to the claimant/respondent and through the same letter notification of the award was also confirmed.

6. It appears from the pleadings available on the record that after entering into the contract the claimant/respondent submitted the work programme as required under clause 8.3 of the contract document. In course of execution, the claimant/respondent informed the appellant that the site was full of hindrances, land were yet to be acquired and there were many types of encroachments etc. and because of that the claimant was suffering huge loss for idling manpower, machinery and other incidental loss.

7. The claimant as per contract agreement served notice for appointment of Dispute Board. Since the appellant did not reply to the letter dated 29.06.2017, the claimant vide letter dated 04.07.2017 requested the Indian Road Congress to constitute a point Dispute Board for determination of interim claim lodged by the claimant. Eventually, the appellant vide letter dated 03.04.2018 agreed that since the Dispute Board has not been constituted so far and therefore, in view of clause 20.6 of the contract agreement, the alleged dispute was referred to the arbitration directly. Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted.

8. The Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal made the award on the claims preferred by the claimant/respondent as per the following details: –

9. Being aggrieved by the award of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, the appellant preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the learned District Judge (now known as Principal District Judge) challenging the award on various grounds including that the award has been made without following the fundamental policies of law in India.

10. The learned