Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court can only interfere with an arbitral award on limited grounds; the contractor's claim for security deposit was valid, as the limitation period commenced at the conclusion of the work.

JUDGMENT :

OM NARAYAN RAI, J.

1. These two appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to “the said Act of 1996”) assail a common order dated January 17, 2025 passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court whereby two applications under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996, being AP-COM No. 229 of 2024 filed by Haldia Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “Haldia”) and AP-COM 255 of 2024 filed by M/s. Konarak Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as “Konarak”) were disposed of. By the order impugned AP-COM No. 229 of 2024 has been allowed in part and AP-COM No. 255 of 2024 has been dismissed.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

2. Summed up briefly, the undisputed facts of the case, as may be gathered from the material on record, are as follows:-

a) Haldia had floated a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for construction of road from Gholpukur to Tekhali Bridge via Amdabad High School at Nandigram (Part- A).

b) Konarak participated in the said tender process and emerged successful, whereafter the work of construction of road from Gholpukur to Tekhali Bridge via Amdabad High School at Nandigram (Part - A) was awarded to Konarak by way of a work order dated February 18, 2009.

c) Certain disputes arose between the parties regarding payments (including refund of security deposit) claimed by Konarak in respect of the work awarded to it by Haldia.

d) As the relevant contract governing the parties (i.e. the work order issued by Haldia in favour of Konarak) and the terms of the NIT provided for resolution of disputes through arbitration, Konarak sought reference of the same to a learned Arbitrator for adjudication. However, as the learned Arbitrator could not be appointed in terms of the arbitration agreement, Konarak approached this Court by filing an application under Section 11 of the said Act of 1996 which was registered as A.P. 235 of 2017.

e) The said application was disposed of by an order dated April 27, 2017 thereby appointing a learned Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that had cropped up between the parties.

f) Thereafter, Konarak filed its statement of claim before the learned Arbitrator, thereby laying the following three claims: -

i. Refund of security deposit laying in the custody of the respondent along with interest calculated upto 30.10.2016 at the rate of 12%;

ii. Delayed interest on the principal amount of the Final Bill upto 30.10.2016 at the rate of 12%;

iii. Further interests from 01.11.2016 till payment at the rate of 12%; and iv. Costs.

g) The respondent contested the claim by filing its counter statement cum counter-claim thereby denying all the material allegations made in the statement of claim and laying a counter claim of Rs.73,09,922/- (Rupees Seventy Three Lakh Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Two) on the ground that Haldia had to get the balance work left unfinished by Konarak, by a third party upon the payment of the said sum of Rs.73,09,922/- (Rupees Seventy Three Lakh Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Two).

h) The sole learned Arbitrator disposed of the arbitral proceedings by making and publishing an award on February 29, 2020 thereby partly allowing Konarak’s claim and rejecting the counter-claim filed by Haldia.

i) After receiving the said award, Konarak filed an application under section 33 of the said Act of 1996 seeking rectification of a few mistakes that, according to Konarak, were apparent on t