Courts may only set aside arbitration awards under specific grounds; the presence of reasoning by the arbitrator, while not mandatory, must be assessed for adequacy, but cannot be dismissed purely based on perceived inadequacy if evidence supports the conclusion.

JUDGMENT :

Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereafter “the said Act of 1940”) against a judgment and order dated August 16, 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in AP 654 of 2011 whereby the challenge thrown to an award under Section 30 read with Sections 33 and 41 of the said Act of 1940 has been repelled.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case run in the statement of claim is as follows.

(a) The appellant had issued a notice inviting tender bearing no. 17 of 1983-84 for construction of an eight storied building with foundation of sixteen storied building at Alipore Collectorate Compound at an estimated cost of Rs.1,52,50,537/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven Only).

(b) The work was to be completed within a period of 24 months spanning October 24, 1983 to October 23, 1985.

(c) The claimant i.e. respondent herein participated in the tender process and ultimately emerged successful. Thereafter, the claimant was issued the acceptance-cum-work order dated October 4, 1983 by the Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Southern Circle. Subsequently, a formal agreement was also executed between the claimant and the appellant.

(d) Upon receipt of the work order, the claimant started the work but it was abnormally delayed due to certain breaches/default on the part of the appellant. The claimant i.e. respondent herein, therefore, invoked the arbitration clause and claimed damages on the following grounds.

(i) Delay in finalization of site and further delay in removing obstruction like cable lines, water etc. from the site of the works.

(ii) Delay in issuing drawings and necessary decision.

(iii) Delay in issuing specified departmental materials like cement and stell as per requirement in right time.

(iv) Failure to make proper and timely on account payments.

(e) On the aforesaid grounds, the claimant made as many as six principal claims aggregating to Rs.57,01,574/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakh One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Four Only) under several heads.

(f) These were followed by a separate claim for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid aggregate sum.

3. The appellant (i.e. respondent before the arbitrator) filed its counter statement thereby denying all the material allegations in the statement of claim and alongside also lodged a counter claim.

4. The dispute between the parties was ultimately decided by the arbitrator by an award made and signed on October 23, 2010, whereby all the claims of the claimant except claim no. 1, claim no. 2(f), claim no. 2(h), claim no. 3, claim no. 5 and claim no. 6 were allowed. The claimant was thus awarded an aggregate sum of Rs. 23,99,106/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred Six Only) together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum thereon for the period October 1, 1991 till December 31, 1999.

5. A further interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the aforesaid sum was also allowed for the period January 1, 2000 till payment or till the award became decree of Court whichever was earlier. A further sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) was awarded as costs to be paid by the appellant herein to the respondent (claimant).

6. Assailing the aforesaid award, the appellant herein (i.e. the respondent before the arbitrator) approached this Court by filing an application being AP No. 654 of 2011 under Section 30 read with Section 33 and 41 of the said Act of 1940. The said application has been dismissed by the order impugned. Hence the present appeal.

7. Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, the learned Senior Advoca