The Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider claim amounts and reject specific claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner (hereinafter 'HRB') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the 'A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 13.04.2018 (hereinafter 'the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with a contract awarded to HRB for refurbishment and upgradation of twenty-five government schools. The Arbitral Tribunal has rendered a net award of Rs. 3,04,91,623/- along with interest in favour of HRB.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts that are necessary to address the controversy are as under:

4. The Government of NCT of Delhi launched a project for refurbishment and upgradation of 198 schools run by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The respondent (hereinafter 'DSIIDC') was entrusted with implementation of a part of the project covering twenty-five schools.

5. On 08.07.2009, DSIIDC invited tenders for entire works (both civil and electrical) to be executed in respect of twenty-five schools being a part of the project entrusted to DSIIDC. HRB submitted its bid for executing the aforesaid works. After negotiations, DSIIDC accepted HRB's offer to execute the said works for a total consideration of Rs. 35,46,00,174/-. On 18.08.2009, DSIIDC issued a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) awarding the work of "Integrated Infrastructure Development of Delhi Govt. Schools'" under the subhead "Improvement and Upgradation of 25 Government Schools Buildings in North West 'A' District (Composite Work)".

6. The work was to commence on 28.09.2009 and it was stipulated that the work would be completed on or before 27.09.2010.

7. Thereafter, on 30.09.2009, the parties entered into a formal agreement (hereinafter 'the Agreement') for execution of the works.

8. DSIIDC did not handover the work of twenty-five schools as agreed to under the Agreement but handed over work pertaining to only twenty-three schools. There were considerable delays in completion of the works contracted to HRB and, the same were finally completed on 18.01.2012; that is, after a delay of 478 days.

9. DSIIDC withheld part payments of the Final Bill and also made certain recoveries from the amount payable to HRB. According to DSIIDC, HRB had defaulted in performance of its obligations under the Agreement within the stipulated time. HRB disputed the same. According to HRB, the delay in execution of the works was due to various reasons attributable to DSIIDC and it was not responsible for any delay.

10. DSIIDC also claimed that the works executed were faulty and sought to recover damages from HRB. HRB, on the other hand, claimed that it was not only entitled to the payments withheld by DSIIDC but was also entitled to compensation on account of escalation and prolongation of works as well as profits for the works reduced from the scope of the Agreement (work relating to two schools which were not handed over to HRB).

11. In view of the aforesaid disputes, HRB invoked the Arbitration Clause to refer the disputes to arbitration and requested that an Arbitral Tribunal be constituted to adjudicate the disputes. On 24.10.2016, the Chief Engineer of DSIIDC appointed Sh. O.P. Bhatia, Former Additional DG (Works Special), CPWD as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the subject disputes.

12. HRB filed its Statement of Claims before the Arbitral Tribunal. DSIIDC filed its Statement of Defence as well as counter claims amounting to Rs. 20,05,00,000/-. One of the claims (Claim No.l) preferred by HRB was greater in value than as indicated by HRB in its request for arbitration, which was subsequently referred by Chief Engineer of DSIIDC to the Arbitral Tribunal. In its request for arbitration, HRB had, inter alia, claimed Rs. 53,90,498/- as payment due under the Final