The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the award to be made and ready for delivery before invoking Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - These petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (''Act'', for short) with the following common prayers:

"In the light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to;

a) allow the present Petition by directing the sole arbitrator Mr. K.K. Gupta to pass/deliver the arbitral Award as expeditiously as possible on payment by the petitioner of the costs demanded by the sole arbitrator;

b) pass any such other and further orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. Before delving into the controversy in question it is pertinent to note the facts in brief. As the issue in both the petitions being identical, the facts of OMP (MISC.) (COMM) 377/2019 are being narrated. It is also clarified, the facts which are specific to OMP(MISC.) (COMM) 378/2019 shall be narrated separately. It is stated by the petitioner that on May 06, 2010, the respondent issued an NIT for a project titled "Construction on dwelling units including allied services for Officers, JCOs and Ors at Bangalore" (''Project Bangalore'', for short). The contract price for Project Bangalore was Rs. 163.27 crores and the period of completion was 25 months in five phases, from the date of handing over of the site. The scheduled date for handing over of the site and the date of commencement as per Work Order No. 1 was September 15, 2010.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent accepted the tender of the petitioner, vide Letter of Acceptance dated August 31, 2010, for a lump sum amount of Rs. 163.27 crores and allotted contract No. "CA NO. DGMAP/PH-II/PKG21/03/04 of 2010-2011", in favour of the petitioner for Project Bangalore.

4. Owing to certain disputes that arose between the parties, the respondent terminated the contract for Project Bangalore on September 25, 2013. Thereafter, in terms of Clause 60 of the General Conditions of Contract (''GCC'', for short), respondent No.1 appointed Mr. K. K. Gupta, Chief Engineer, Standing Panel of Arbitrators as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties vide Letter of Appointment dated December 26, 2014 (''Letter of Appointment'', for short).

5. The sole arbitrator entered upon reference on January 14, 2015 and called upon the parties to submit documents as per the time scheduled laid down by him. Subsequently, the petitioner on August 12, 2015 filed its Statement of Claim, claiming an amount of Rs. 64,65,50,514/-. The petitioner on January 14, 2016 also submitted its rejoinder to Pleading in Defence. The respondent No.1 filed its Pleading in Defence to the Statement of Claim on February 16, 2016 as well as reply to the rejoinder of the petitioner was filed on August 23, 2016.

6. Later, on June 21, 2018, the sole arbitrator issued a letter to the parties stating that the arbitration proceedings were held up due to certain administrative issues with the designated appointing authority and that the sole arbitrator now intended to complete the arbitration proceedings in case both parties have no objection to it. Since respondent No.1 did not reply to the aforesaid letter, the sole arbitrator on August 06, 2018 issued another letter to the parties requesting the respondent to submit their consent or dissent to continue with the subject arbitration.

7. In response to the aforesaid letter dated June 21, 2018 and August 06, 2018, respondent No.1 vide letter dated August 21, 2018 stated that it never objected to the sole arbitrator in continuing with the arbitration proceedings and further requested the sole arbitrator to proceed in the matter expeditiously and publish the final award by or before November 30, 2018.

8. Thereafter, it is stated by the petitioner that the sole arbitrator vide its order in proceedings dated October 16, 2018 informed the