The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited role of the court in reviewing arbitral decisions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"). In this appeal, the appellant has challenged an order and judgment dated 6 December, 2018 ("impugned order") whereby the Learned Single Judge had dismissed an application filed under Section 34 of the Act challenging an award dated 28 March, 2017 ("impugned award") passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

2. The question before the Sole Arbitrator concerned a claim for price of goods sold and delivered and for services rendered. By the impugned award, the Arbitrator has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.22,31,532.00/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from November 19, 2008 till realisation of its dues to the respondent.

3. Briefly stated, by a contract dated 7 April, 2007 the appellant had placed a work order for design, engineering, testing and commissioning of a water cooler type central air-conditioning system for a complex situated at Kharagpur. The respondent accepted the work order and by a letter dated 20 April, 2007 confirmed the value of the entire project at Rs. 1,24,23,086/- subject to levy of statutory duties and taxes. The contract provided that the entire work was to be completed by the respondent by 30 June, 2007. The other terms and conditions of the contract stipulated that the respondent was to provide warranties/guarantees and satisfactory completion certificates upon completion of the said work and completion of a performance test. Admittedly, the respondent provided a handing over certificate on 21 August, 2008. The claim of the respondent before the Arbitrator was for price of goods supplied and delivered.

4. It is the case of the respondent that notwithstanding satisfactory completion of the work, the claimant had failed to pay the balance sum of Rs. 22,31,532.60/- inclusive of interest. On the other hand, the appellant had filed a counterclaim for an amount of Rs. 4,32,81,496.20/- under various heads including for liquidated damages. It is an admitted position that before the Arbitrator at the 22nd sitting, the appellant withdrew five of his initial claims after which the counterclaim was restricted to Rs. 6,21,154.30/- on account of liquidated damages and for delay in completion of works by the respondent. The appellant also claimed an additional amount on account of the delay in execution of works and cost of electricity. It was the primary grievance of the appellant that the respondent had failed, neglected and refused to carry out the performance test as stipulated under the contract despite repeated reminders on 5 September 2008, 6 January 2009, 16 June 2009, 28 June 2010 and 11 August, 2010. The appellant further contended that he was ready and willing to make payment to the respondent but only on the contractual terms and after completion of all the obligations of the respondent under the contract. The appellant also contended that the respondent was liable to compensate the claimant for the delay in completion of the works.

5. Mr. L. P. Surana, the appellant (appearing in-person), contended that the award passed by the Arbitrator is erroneous both on facts and on law and is liable to be set aside. He urged that the award was based primarily on the admissions of the claimant contained in the letter dated 16 June, 2009, wherein the appellant had recorded its appreciation for the good air conditioning and plant installation and commissioning by the respondent and further requested them to continue to provide the good services for the proper operation and maintenance of the air conditioning system. In the said letter, the appellant had also sought for time to make payment of the balance amount to the respondent on the ground of facing acute financial crisis. It was further contended by the appellant that the said letter did not contain an unequivocal and categorical admission of liability and the same should have been read alongwith the other letters dated 16 June 2009, 28 June