The main legal point established is that the interpretation of contractual obligations and the discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal in awarding interest are crucial in determining the enforceability of arbitration awards.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - M/s Wapcos Limited (hereinafter 'Wapcos') has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter 'the A&C Act') impugning a common judgement dated 31.07.2020 (hereinafter 'the impugned judgement') passed by the learned Commercial Court, whereby it had rejected the applications filed by Wapcos and M/s C & C Energy Private Limited (hereinafter 'C&C') under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The parties had preferred their respective applications, impugning the award dated 13.06.2019  (hereinafter 'the impugned award') to the extent that they were aggrieved. Wapcos assails the impugned judgement to the limited extent that it rejects its application under Section 34 of the A&C Act [being OMP(Comm) No. 167/2009 captioned M/s WAPCOS Limited vs C & C Energy Private Limited].

Factual Background

2. On 18.09.2012, the Energy Water and Sanitation Authority of Rwanda (EWSA, Rwanda) awarded a contract to Wapcos for 'supervision of engineering-procurement-construction of 15 MW peat-to-power plant in Rwanda' (hereinafter 'the Project').

3. Thereafter, on 21.01.2013, Wapcos and C&C entered into an agreement (hereinafter 'the Agreement'), whereby C&C agreed to assist in the supervision of the Project. The Agreement was for a term of fifteen months from the date of execution of the Agreement, that is, until 20.04.2014. In terms of Article 9 of the Agreement, the remuneration and payment for the services was fixed at ?1,64,43,000/-, excluding all taxes against the provision of manpower for carrying out the tasks.

4. The scope of work to be performed by Wapcos and C&C was contingent upon the work executed by the Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) Contractor engaged by EWSA, Rwanda. The EPC Contractor delayed in completing its work, rendering Wapcos and C&C unable to complete their work within the stipulated period of time. The parties were only able to complete 50% of the work within the stipulated period of fifteen months.

5. C&C contends that on account of failure of the EPC Contractor to complete its work in time, it sent a letter dated 17.03.2014, requesting for an extension of time for a period of six months or until the completion of the erection of plant by the EPC Contractor. C&C also stated that the financial remuneration for this would be agreed mutually. C&C states that it continued to work and provided seventy-six (76) additional man-days for the work. Thereafter, it withdrew its manpower.

6. C&C raised invoices amounting to ?1,86,44,882/-. Against the said invoices, Wapcos only paid an amount of ?1,16,57,067/-. The remuneration for the additional man-days provided by C&C amounted to ?13,68,684/-, against which Wapcos did not make any payment.

7. Thereafter, disputes arose between Wapcos and C&C regarding the payment of the balance amount. After no result came from trying to resolve the disputes amicably, C&C invoked the agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, in terms of Article 11.5 of the Agreement. However, the parties failed to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator. Thereafter, C&C, by way of a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act, approached this Court for appointment of an arbitrator. By an order dated 30.05.2017, this Court referred the parties to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted under the Rules of the DIAC. Arbitration

8. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, C&C filed its Statement of Claims. The claims made by C&C in the Statement of Claims are tabulated below:

9. Wapcos filed its Statement of Defence and contested