The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of contracts is within the exclusive domain of the arbitrator, and the court's role is limited to reviewing the arbitrator’s decision.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In these proceedings, the appellant, National Thermal Power Ltd (hereafter NTPC), is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.08.2009 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) 1393-A/1999, CS (OS) 1444-A/1999 and I.A. 9932/1999. The impugned judgment rejected NTPC's challenge to an award, preferred under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The brief facts are that on 25.05.1987, NTPC accepted the bid of M/s V.U. Seemon (the Respondent, hereafter “the Contractor” or the “claimant”) dated 20.12.1986, made through their Telex Award dated 07.05.1987 and awarded the contract for the construction of boundary wall and fencing package for Kawas Gas Power Project. The scheduled completion of the entire work was 06.05.1988. An extension of six and a half months however was granted to the Contractor. Later, alleging non-completion as on 21.04.1989, a notice was given by NTPC requiring completion of the balance work by 15.05.1989, failing which it threatened to award the balance work to another agency at the risk and cost of the Contractor. On 19.06.1989, NTPC terminated the contract, in terms of Clause 41 of the General Conditions of Contract for Civil Works (“GCC”). At that time, work worth only Rs.77 lakhs was done, out of which Rs.75 lakhs were paid, as opposed to the total contract value of Rs.1,07,31,580/-. Thereafter, expenditure of Rs.42,62,705/- incurred by NTPC in completing the balance work by another contractor was claimed from the Contractor, due to which the latter issued notice invoking arbitration as on 07.12.1989. The Contractor approached this Court under Section 20 of the Act for appointment of Arbitrator. NTPC had, on its own, appointed Sh. P.C. Nag (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitrator”). The arbitral proceedings initiated in 1991 continued till 1999 and the award was made in favor of the Contractor on 03.05.1999.

3. NTPC preferred objections to the award, following the filing of award in Court, under Sections 30 and 33, on 01.10.1999 which were dismissed by the Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The Learned Single Judge found no perversity in the findings returned by the Arbitrator holding that the question of interpretation of clauses of a contract is within the domain of the Arbitrator and, unless the view taken is so perverse or absurd, it cannot be interfered with by the Court. The Learned Single Judge was of the view that it was not the function of the Court to re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with an Award merely on the basis that the Court could have come to a different conclusion on the material available to the Arbitrator. Reliance was placed on Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. & Anr. [AIR 1989 SC 973] and Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCC 347]. It was further held that the views taken by the Arbitrator on various aspects were plausible. The court may or may not agree with those views but inasmuch as they were plausible and within the four corners of the contractual terms which bind the party, the same cannot be disturbed by the Court in exercise of its powers under the said Act.

4. The Single Judge disagreed with the submissions made by the NTPC on the issue of misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator either with respect to his personal conduct or his conduct in law. It was further stated that the Court did not find the Award to be contrary to law.

Appellant’s contentions

5. The NTPC argued firstly that the claimant’s letter of 07.05.1987 barred it from making any claims in respect of the delay or related issues. Learned counsel emphasized here that the findings of the Arbitrator are both contrary to the record as well as the contract. It was urged that the finding in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment that there was no infirmity in the award is unsustainable in law, on this score. Once the party