The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference by a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, and the judicial principles governing the jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act.

GITA MITTAL, J.

CM No.35246/2017 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM No. 35248/2017 (condonation of delay in refilling)

3. Notice.

4. Mr. Karan Luthra, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

5. Having regard to the nature of the application, counsel are orally heard.

6. This application seeks condonation of 103 days delay in refiling the present appeal after its original filing on 11th May, 2017. It appears that, despite being apprised of the objections by the Registry, the appellant failed to remove the same, resulting in 103 days delay in refiling. Even though the applicant does not disclose any reasons or circumstances for the delay as occasioned inasmuch as we have heard Mr. Sanjeev Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, on the appeal itself, we are inclined to accept the prayer for condonation of delay in refiling this appeal. Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

7. This application is allowed.

CM No. 35247/2017(condonation of delay in filing)

8. Mr. Karan Luthra, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

9. Having regard to the nature of the application, counsel are orally heard.

10. For the reasons stated, delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

11. This application is allowed.

FAO(OS) 261/2017

12. We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, at length, on the challenge laid by way of the present appeal under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant seeks to challenge the judgment, dated 16th March, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing OMP 534/2015, which was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The appellant had, therein, filed objections to an Arbitral Award dated 30th April, 2015, passed by the sole Arbitrator in disputes between the parties.

13. The facts giving rise to the present matter are within a narrow compass and, to the extent necessary, are set down hereafter.

14. It appears that disputes arose between the parties with regard to a work order dated 12th February, 2007 which was issued by BHEL (the appellant herein) in favour of M/s Teknow Consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent herein) “for execution and handing over of Civil works of switchyard and transformer yard for M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation 220/33 KV substation at Barsingsar in Rajasthan.” The relevant clauses of the work order, which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge are noted hereafter :

“(i) Under Clause 3.1 the total contract price was Rs.5,11,14,000.

(ii) Under Clause 3.2 the actual payment to be made to the Respondent was based on measurement taken at the site and verified by the Engineers of BHEL as per the unit rate agreed between the parties.

(iii) Under Clause 5.7 no interest was payable by BHEL “on security deposit or on any money due to the Contractor.”

(iv) Under Clause 9 of the work order it was stipulated that in case due to reasons not attributable to the Respondent, the work got delayed and the scheduled completion got extended, the Respondent would not be entitled for any over run compensation for a period of three months beyond the original contract period. In case the scheduled completion got extended beyond three months fixed, over run compensation would be suitably paid on mutual agreement between BHEL and the Respondent. The decision of BHELK in this regard was final and binding on the Respondent.

(v) Under Clause 11, if the Contractor fails to complete the work within the contractual period it was liable to pay penalty @0.5% for amount equal to short fall in progress achieved and 0.5% of the contractual price as LD for each week of part thereof subject to a maximum (penalty + LD) of 10% of the contract price.

(vi) Under Clause 17 no idle labour charges would be admissible in the event of any stoppage of work resulting in the Contractor’s workmen being idle due to any reason at any time.”

15. The objections be