The scope of interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is fairly limited and narrow. The Courts shall not sit in an appeal while adjudicating a challenge to an Award which is passed by an Arbitrator, the master of evidence, after due consideration after facts, circumstances, evidence and material before him.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “Arbitration Act”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:—

“a. Pass an order thereby setting aside/quashing the Impugned Arbitral Award dated 13.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator Shri Dinesh Kumar in the matter of arbitration between ‘M/s. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and GNCTD’ and allow the counter claim put forth by the Petitioner before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator; or in the alternative

b. Set aside the Impugned Arbitral Award dated 13.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator Shri Dinesh Kumar in the matter of arbitration between ‘M/s. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and GNCTD’ and remand the matter for fresh adjudication as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

c. Pass an order thereby calling for the original arbitration records;

d. Pass any other order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

BRIEF BACKGROUND

2. The following course of events have led to the filing of the instant matter:—

a. The petitioner is acting through the Public Works Department and its Executive Engineer, Flyover Project Division F-123 and Executive Engineer, Flyover Electrical Division F-114. The respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged inter alia in the business of construction and infrastructure projects.

b. The petitioner invited tender on 2nd December 2012 for the Project of ‘construction elevated road over Barapulla Nallah starting from Sarai Kale Khan to Aurobindo Marg, near INA market, New Delhi - Phase II, from Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium to Aurobindo Marg with connection at Ring Road, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg and Aurobindo Marg’. The respondent submitted its bid vide letter dated 28th December 2012 and after negotiation, the petitioner awarded the Project to the respondent vide Letter of Acceptance dated 1st February 2013. An Agreement was also entered into by the parties and a letter dated 8th February 2013 was issued by the petitioner for commencement of the work. As per the Agreement, the stipulated dates of commencement and completion of the work were 23rd February 2013 and 22nd May 2015.

c. During the course of the Project, certain disputes arose between the parties due to the delay caused in completion of the Project and ultimately reference was made to arbitration by way of invoking Arbitration Clause of the General Conditions of Contract vide Letter dated 10th July 2020. The arbitration proceedings were initiated and the impugned Arbitral Award was passed on 13th August 2022 by the learned Arbitrator so appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

d. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 13th August 2022 to the extent of findings qua Claim No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and Counter Claim No. 1.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Petitioner

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned Arbitrator is perverse, illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary and is hence liable to be set aside. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are twofold. Firstly, the learned counsel has impugned the claim-wise finding and secondly, the Arbitral Award has been challenged while referring to the legal principles under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Submissions on claims

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner qua Claim No. 2 submitted as under:

a. The impugned arbitral award is patently illegal as it is barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”). The impugned Arbitral Award is perverse as the learned Arbitrator had allowed a time-barred claim which is evident from the indisputable fact that the respondent had already raised this claim vide its letter dated 28th June 2014, yet it did not seek recovery thereof within the stipulated period of 3 years.

b.