The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act, 1996, and the importance of a reasonable interpretation of the contract and factual evidence in arbitration decisions.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. The petitioner-Delhi State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as "DSIIDC") has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1996") read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, read with Section 13 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11th August, 2021, dismissing the objections under Section 34 of the Act 1996, preferred by DSIIDC.

2. The learned Arbitrator vide the impugned award dated 13th April, 2018 had awarded a net sum of Rs.3,04,91623/- along with interest in favour of the respondent-M/s H.R. Builders (hereinafter referred as HRB").

3. The factual matrix in which the dispute has arisen is that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `GNCTD') launched a Project for Refurbishment and Upgradation of 198 schools run by the GNCTD. The implementation of part of the project was entrusted to DSIIDC. DSIIDC invited tenders on 08th July, 2009 for the entire work including electrical and civil work for 25 schools which were part of the project. The bid of HRB was accepted and a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) was issued 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)". The work was to commence on 28th September, 2009 and was stipulated to be completed on or before 27th September, 2010. A formal Agreement dated 30th September, 2009 was entered into between the parties for execution of the work. Twenty three schools were handed over by DSIIDC instead of twenty five schools as was agreed under the Agreement by the parties. There was considerable delay in completion of the work which was finally completed after a delay of 478 days on 18th January, 2012. DSIIDC withheld the part payment of final bills and also made certain recoveries from the amount payable to the HRB on account of delay, which according to DSIIDC was attributable to the respondent herein. Also the executed work was claimed to be faulty and damages were sought. On the other hand, respondent asserted that it was not only entitled to withhold amounts but also to the `compensation on account of escalation and prolongation of works as well as profits for the works reduced from the scope of the Agreement relating to two schools which were not handed over to the respondent.

4. Disputes arose and HRB invoked the Arbitration Clause for reference of disputes to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted and Shri O.P. Bhatia, former Additional Director General (Works Special), CPWD was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator on 24th October, 2016 by the Chief Engineer, DSIIDC.

5. HRB filed its Claim of Statement before the Arbitral Tribunal. DSIIDC also filed a statement of defence as well as counter claim in the sum of Rs.20,05,00,000/- on account of loss of reputation and loss of work and also cost of arbitration..

6. According to the appellant, HRB in its request for arbitration had made a claim for Rs.53,90,498/- as payment due under the final bill but in its Statement of Claim before the Arbitral Tribunal, it made a claim of Rs.1,40,94,470/- as the amount payable under the final bill. In addition, HRB also claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as cost of arbitration vide Claim No.9 which was not included in the request for arbitration filed by it. Consequently, the claim before the Arbitral Tribunal included the disputes which had not been referred by the Chief Engineer, DSIIDC. HRB sent a Letter dated 29th March, 2017 to the Chief Engineer, DSIIDC requesting to modify the amount of Claim No.1 to Rs.1,40,94,470/- and also to refer the claim relating to cost in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Arbitral Tribunal. The request letter of HRB was forwarded by the Chie