The arbitrator has the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of evidence, and the court will uphold the award if it aligns with the agreement provisions and is supported by evidence.

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned arbitral award dated 11.10.2012.

2. The brief facts as alleged by the petitioner/objector are as follows:-

(a) the petitioner - Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) awarded a work to the respondent for construction of telephone exchange at 9, CGO Complex, New Delhi, vide an Agreement dated 04.09.1992;

(b) certain disputes arose between the parties and learned arbitrator was appointed on 12.03.1997, who entered the reference on 30.04.1997 and gave an award on 28.1.2000;

(c) MTNL filed a petition O.M.P 91/2000 under Section 34 of the Act challenging the Award in this Court, decided vide judgment dated 23.11.2009 wherein it was observed:-

“Claim #4 contains many sub-heads and where different items of Claim for extra expenditure due to prolongation of work done beyond the stipulated date of completion which was 09.09.1994. The Arbitrator has duly noticed that the contract instead of being completed in Sept. 1994 was ultimately completed in December 1998. The Arbitrator has also given a finding of fact that it is the objector who was guilty of causing delays in the performance of the contract and details of such subjects have been given while pronouncing upon these claims. I may note that it is also an admitted fact that for the extended period, no liquidated damages/compensation have been imposed upon the contractor in as much as the objector being guilty of delay itself it bad no option but to extend the contract without any consequential levy on-the contractor for any loss/damages. The issue however remains that once the Arbitrator has held the objector guilty of delay can the losses as awarded to the contractor by the Award necessarily follow. To this I agree with the counsel for the objector that with respect to Claim #4(b) which is-granted for huge amount of Rs.46,80,000 as also the Claim towards insurance of workman compensation for Rs.11,29,603 and for bank guarantees charges of Rs.17,66,460, the Arbitrator has given absolutely no basis for arriving at these figures nor has he referred to either any calculation or any evidence as to how these amounts have been awarded. Same is the position with respect to Claim #5 under which escalation has been granted to the Contractor. The Award on these aspects can thus be said to be an unreasoned Award."

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submit as per judgment dated 23.11.2009 the learned arbitrator was directed to give reasons for amounts so awarded in his award dated 28.01.2000, but the learned arbitrator went ahead and so far as claims No.4b and 4d are concerned he did not give sufficient reasons for awarding such sums yet again and qua claim No.5 he without any cogent reason gave the award for an extended period viz. till December, 1998.

4. Claim No.4b pertains to the Establishment Expenses during the extended period; claim No.4d pertains to bank guarantee charges, insurance charges etc. during such extended period; whereas the claim No.5 relate to Escalation Charges for the extended period.

5. It is the case of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner had filed a table Annexure X to its Rejoinder showing different amounts claimed by the respondent and the amount actually due and recoverable as per the documents filed by the claimant had a huge difference of Rs. 7,57,406/- qua the administrative expenses viz salaries etc for the extended period, yet the learned arbitrator ignored the same. It is the case of the petitioner though some vouchers were filed by the respondent qua permanent staff, but the learned arbitrator wrongly awarded such expenditure on average basis till December, 1998. Further, he argued even no proper reasons were given for awarding insurance charges and Bank Guarantee charges for the extended period despite the respon