The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless it is vitiated on the ground of patent illegality.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) challenging an arbitral award dated 14.07.2020 (hereafter the impugned award) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereafter the Arbitral Tribunal).

2. The petitioner states that after the impugned award was delivered, the parties filed an application under Section 33 of the A&C Act seeking certain corrections. The said application was disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal on 27.08.2020 and therefore, the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act is required to be reckoned from that date.

3. The petitioner states that on 10.12.2020, the petitioner filed its petition under Section 34 before the District Court, which was OMP (COMM) 103/2020 captioned Union of India v. M/s Aadhar Stumbh Township Pvt. Ltd.. However, the said petition was disposed of as withdrawn as the learned District Judge found that the court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said petition.

Factual Background

4. The petitioner [CPWD, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India] had issued a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) for the construction of office building and staff quarters at Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi [SH. C/o T-III-16 Nos. and T-II-32 Nos. (8 Story)] and basement including an internal electrical installation. The respondent submitted its bid, which was opened on 09.10.2012. The respondent was declared successful and the petitioner issued a Letter of Intent (hereinafter LoI) dated 30.01.2013 for awarding the Contract in favour of the respondent. The aforesaid Contract awarded to the respondent had a negotiated value of Rs. 10,70,67,114/-, which was about 10.35% below the estimated cost of Rs. 11,94,26,929/-.

5. The date of commencement of the work was stipulated as fifteen days after issuance of the LoI. Thus, the works were to commence on 14.02.2013. The Contract was to be completed within a period of 450 days and the expected date of completion was agreed as 09.05.2014.

6. The works were completed on 19.06.2015. There is some controversy regarding the date of completion of the works. The petitioner claims that the parties had agreed that the works were completed on 19.06.2015, however, the physical works were completed on 21.06.2021. However, this controversy is not material.

7. The final bill was submitted on 17.09.2015 and the respondent claimed that the balance amount of Rs. 4,14,19,475/- was due. Thereafter, on 15.10.2015, the respondent applied for extension of time, which was granted without levy of any compensation.

8. The final bill was paid on 29.08.2016. The respondent had made an endorsement, which reads as 15th bill accepted with measurement on account of full and final. Thereafter, on 28.09.2016, the respondent sent a letter demanding the balance payment payable under the final bill. It claimed that it had only received part payment of the amounts due to it.

9. The demand raised by the respondent was not accepted. Consequently, on 15.10.2016, the respondent sent a letter to the Superintendent Engineer raising certain claims and further, stating that the endorsement made by it for receiving part payment of the final bill was under coercion and economic duress. The said Superintendent Engineer did not accept the claims as raised.

10. Thereafter, the respondent sent a letter dated 23.01.2017 referring its claims to the concerned Chief Engineer with a request that a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) be constituted in terms of Clause 25(1) of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC).

11. Pursuant to the request made by the respondent, a DRC was constituted. It considered the claims made by the respondent and rendered its decision on 19.04.2018 directing the petitioner to make a payment of Rs. 92,69,297/- to the respondent. The respondent accepted the said amount while reserving its right to pursue the remaining claims in arbitratio