The court emphasized that it would not re-examine the facts of an arbitral award unless specific grounds for challenge are present under section 34(2) of the Act.

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. This petition is under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) challenging the award dated 17.04.2017 passed by the sole arbitrator.

2. Vide an agreement dated 24.01.2009 M/s Prestress Wire Industries (the petitioner herein) had awarded the work of construction of factory building at Bajpur vide agreement dated 24.01.2009 amounting to Rs. 2,28,00,000/- to the contractor/the respondent herein who reduced its bid by 6.7% discount. Certain disputes arose between the parties and an arbitrator was appointed. The statement of claim was filed on 09.08.2012 and the statement of defense was filed on 04.12.2012. The claimant submitted its rejoinder on 26.02.2013 and evidence was recorded and thereafter an impugned award was given.

3. The stipulated date of commencement of work was 21.01.2009 and the stipulated time for completion was 180 days plus 15 days for additional mobilization.

4. The layout drawings of the work were issued on 14.03.2009, the foundation details on 19.03.2009 and hence the date of start of the work was 03.02.2009. Further tiles were asked to be provided in foundation as an additional item of work. There was a shortage of cement and steel which was later arranged and the shortage of labour and other resources on the part of the claimant.

5. Qua allowing of claim No. 1 of the respondent the petitioner has urged the details of the final bill given in annexure C-6 are not admitted as were never received by them and was not signed by the Architect of the respondent. Rather relying upon the details of the final bills given in the letter of the Architect dated 12.10.2012 anneuxre R-23 it is stated no other payment was due to the claimant and that over payments have been made. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner the tender of the claimant was not the lowest, but was accepted after the claimant had agreed to reduce the tender amount by allowing rebate of 6.7%. The respondent urges the rebate was conditional to execution of both the works by the claimant viz. this work and a similar work for the sister concern of the respondent- M/s. Sidhi Ferrous, but such rebate was never agreed to and accordingly no such condition is stipulated in the agreement. However, the learned arbitrator has decided this claim as under:-

“..........Admittedly all the running bills were paid after deducting the rebate, which were all along accepted by the claimant. It is added that as late as on 05.05.2010 (Exh.R/21), the claimant confirmed/admitted the account statement of the 5th Running bill accounting for the rebate. Further, since there is no stipulation in the contact agreement as to the rebate being conditional to the execution of both the works by the claimant, the rebate can't be denied in this work to which this arbitration relates.

As per the admission/denial of the documents, the respondent has denied receipt of the final bill submitted by the claimant at Annex. C-6, and the claimant has denied the cover page of the final bill at Annex. R/23 while the rest of the details as on pg 60 to 69 of Annex. R-23 are accepted, which incidentally are practically the same as at Exh.C/6. It is seen that the cover page of Annex. R-23 is the letter from the Architect addressed to the respondent, giving summary of the final bill. The letter is signed by the Architect.

Admittedly, amount of .the total work done comes to Rs. 3,42,59,951/- (Rs. 3,02,67,908/- on account of work as per tender items plus Rs. 39,92,043/- for extra items) and after adding 33% of 10.3% service tax (payable to the claimant as per terms of the contract) on the total amount of Rs. 3,42,59,951/- gross amount of the work comes to Rs. 3,54,24,447/-.

Recovery on account of steel and cement stands at Rs. 1,12,35,051/- and a total payment of Rs. 2,15,80,666/- has earlier been received by the