The main legal point established in the judgment is that an arbitrator is the final adjudicator of the sufficiency and extent of the evidence, and the court will not interfere in an arbitral award unless there is something perverse or irrational.

Sanjeev Narula, J.

The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the "Act") impugns the Arbitral Award dated 11th October 2018 (hereafter the impugned award), passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three Arbitrators (hereinafter the Arbitral Tribunal).

2. By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal has adjudicated the disputes that had arisen between the parties in respect of the contract agreement dated 4th June 2010 for fabrication, assembly and launching of 16 x 45.7m triangulated open web welded steel through girder confirming to MBG Loading Over Br. No. 553 (Kathjodi River) in connection with Cuttack-Barang doubling in Khurda road division of East Coast Railway in the state of Orissa, India.

3. The seven claims raised by the Petitioner, have been decided by the Arbitral Tribunal as follows :

S.No.	Claim	Amount (Rs.)	Decision
1.	Reimbursement of amount recovered as ground rent of fabrication yard	21,15,078	Rejected
2.	Refund of delay damages deducted from various bills	1,11,84,669	Allowed, with interest 12% from the date of recovery till payment.
3.	Price adjustment (bill no-02) upto 12.12.2014	2,16,62,211	Rejected
4.	Reimbursement of bank charges for extension of bank guarantee on account of RVNL	18,61,891	Allowed, refund of guarantee extension charges beyond 31.07.2013 along with interest @12% per annum.
5.	Extended stay compensation	5,95,000,00	Rejected
	Aggregated amount	9,63,23,849
6.	Compensation @18% for amount on unpaid sum of Rs.9,63,23,849 from 08.10.2016 till realisation of claim	As accrued	Allowed to the extent of on delayed damages and refund of bank guarantee charge
7.	Cost of arbitration	As per actual	Divided equally.

Petitioner challenges the award in respect of findings on Claims No.1, 3 & 5.

Analysis and Findings

4. The controversy in the arbitration and the present proceedings centers around the question of delay in completion of the contract. The project was to be completed within a period of nine months. However, it was delayed by 45 months and was completed after several extensions on 12th December 2014.

5. Petitioner holds the Respondent responsible for the delay. On the other hand, Respondent alleges that the Petitioner is accountable for not completing the project within the stipulated period. The question of attributability of delay was the pivot of dispute between the parties. The Arbitral tribunal has concluded that both the Petitioner and the Respondent were at fault and responsible for the delay.

6. The Court has heard Mr. Jayant Mehta learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent. Claim No.1 - Reimbursement of amount recovered as ground rent of fabrication yard

7. The ground rent of fabrication yard amounting to Rs. 21,15,078/- (Twenty One Lakh Fifteen Thousand and Seventy-Eight Rupees) has been recovered from the final Bill of the Petitioner.

8. Facts giving rise to the present claim are that during the pre-bid meeting held on 30th November 2009, Petitioner had enquired from the Respondent if it could utilise the infrastructure setup at Jagatpur end of 2nd Mahanadi Bridge, Cuttack for fabrication, inspection metalizing, painting, etc. The Respondent permitted the use of the abovementioned site, however, it informed the Petitioner that the necessary ground rent will have to be paid to East Coast Railway to whom the land belonged. The abovementioned fabrication yard was occupied by the Petitioner from 25th May 2010 and it continued to occupy it till the completion of the work. Petitioner impugns the recovery of ground rent from 25th May 2010 till 1st April 2013, relying upon a letter of the Respondent da