The Court emphasized that it does not act as a Court of appeal and errors of fact cannot be corrected. The Arbitrator's interpretation of the contract and award of claims were found to be reasonable and not against the terms of the contract.

1. This petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 26th March, 2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in so far as it allows claim nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 of the respondent.

2. The disputes between the parties are in relation to agreement No.CEDZ-36/2009-10 for provision of 72 Single Officers Accommodation Adjacent to Naval Officers Mess (Varuna) at Delhi Cantt. entered into between the parties on 5th November, 2009. Some of the terms of the said agreement that are relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication are reproduced herein below:-

“IN LIEU OF IAFW-2162 (REVISED-1960)

MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES (NOTICE OF TENDER)

xxxxxx

4. The work is to be completed within the period as indicated in the aforesaid Appx ‘A’ (in accordance with the phasing if any, indicated in the tender) from the date of handing over site, which will be about a week after the date of acceptance.

APPENDIX ‘A’ TO NOTICE OF TENDER

(NIT NO.09/CEDZ/2008-09)

xxxxxx

SCHEDULE ‘A’ NOTES (contd…./-)

xxxxxx

13. Period of completion. The entire work covered under this contract shall be completed within 18(Eighteen) months from the date of handing over of site.”

3. The petitioner claims that the date of completion in the contract was meant for completion of all works to be executed under various parts of Schedule A, except Schedule ‘A’ Section XVI which catered for manning and operation of lifts from the date of commissioning till expiry of defects liability period (item no.2 of Schedule ‘A’ Section XVI) and comprehensive maintenance of lifts for a period of 48 months from the date of expiry of defects liable period (item no.1 of Schedule ‘A’ Section XVI). It was further contended that the entire work was to be completed within a period of 78 months. However, in the Work Order, the completion period was considered as 18 months keeping in view only the work mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ Note No.13 on page 17 of the Contract Agreement.

4. The petitioner claims that the respondent on 10th October, 2012 also signed an amendment to the contract recording the above understanding of the parties. The said amendment, so far as is relevant to the present adjudication is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“FIRSTLY: The Schedule ‘A’ note No.13 on Srl. Page No.17 be deleted in toto and in lieu substituted as under:-

13.0 The period of completion for the entire work under this contract shall be 78 (Seventy Eight) Months from the date of commencement shown in the first Work Order placed by the GE in accordance with phasing as indicated hereinafter.

13.2 Site for Phase-II shall be handed over immediately after the date of completion of Phase-I. Accordingly, site for Phase-III shall be handed over immediately after the date next to date of expiry of defect liability period.”

5. The petitioner further contends that the work (except the scope catered under Schedule ‘A’ Section XVI) was certified as complete on 30th January, 2012.

6. Certain disputes arose with respect to t