The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the contractual provisions, particularly Clause 5.7, and its impact on the power of the Arbitrator to award pendente lite interest.

JUDGMENT :

G.S.Sistani, J.

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 against the judgment dated 16.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside in part the Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 30.04.2015 with regard to pendente lite interest.

2. Some necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are as under:

3. The Appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, registered as an SME, and is engaged in the business of construction of switchyards and allied structure. Whereas, the respondent is a public sector undertaking having its registered office at New Delhi. The respondent invited tenders on 05.07.2006 for execution and handling of civil works for M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Rajasthan. On 03.11.2006, the appellant submitted its revised price offer and the same was accepted by the respondent on 28.11.2006.The respondent awarded the work under the tender vide Letter of Intent dated 28.11.2006 and issued a detailed Work Order dated 12.02.2007 to the appellant.

4. As per the Work Order, the original stipulated period of completion of work was 27.03.2008. The appellant applied for the first extension of time on 24.03.2008, the same was granted by the respondent till 31.01.2009 without any financial implication. Further, the second extension was granted till 30.04.2009 on similar grounds. The third extension was sought by the appellant till 31.08.2009. The respondent vide communication dated 22.06.2009 wrote to the appellant asking them to get the work started by 23.06.2009, otherwise the same would be dealt as per the contract agreement. The appellant vide its letter dated 28.06.2009 asked the respondent to close the contract as on 26.06.2009 and award the balance work to any other party after releasing the appellant's overdue payment in terms of escalation and compensation from 31.04.2008 onwards. Pursuant to which, the respondent vide e-mail dated 30.06.2009 conveyed to the appellant that there was no provision in the contract for short closing of the contract. However, it was stated that the "run over charges as per the contract shall be paid." The appellant responded vide letter dated 4.07.2009 stating that the appellant informed the respondent that it is required to pay the over run charges as it was deputing its representative for taking joint measurement of the site on 5.07.2009 for the purpose of the closure. The respondent on 15.07.2009 granted the final extension to the appellant to complete the work by 31.07.2009.

5. However, the disputes arose between the parties in relation to the timelines with respect to the completion of work, pursuant to which, the appellant sent a notice for invocation of the arbitration to the respondent dated 05.09.2009. The Sole Arbitrator after hearing the matter, passed an award in favour of the appellant.

6. The respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act, which was registered as OMP No.534/2015, wherein the Learned Single Judge has set aside the Award in part, passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 30.04.2015 with regards to the pendente lite interest. Learned Single Judge has upheld the claim no.6 of Rs.10,76,084/- on account of over run charges in favour of the appellant as the respondent vide its e-mail dated 30.06.2009 themselves stated that while the escalation would not be payable, over run charges would in fact be paid. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the objections barring the decision rendered by the Arbitrator with respect to Claim No.7. Claim No.7 was raised by the appellant herein for pre suit, pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum. The Arbitrator granted interest @ 13% per annum from 01.07.2009 till the date of the award and upto the date of payment. The Arbitrator also held that if the payment is made b