The main legal point established is that the issuance of a No Claim Certificate (NCC) under economic duress can invalidate its validity and preclude the claimant from raising any claim in connection with the contract.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (hereafter `DSIIDC') has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning an order dated 03.05.2019 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the learned Commercial Court, whereby DSIIDC's application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, seeking to set aside an arbitral award dated 13.11.2014 (hereafter `the impugned award'), was rejected.

Factual Context

2. By a work order dated 18.07.2003 (hereafter `the agreement'), DSIIDC awarded the work of "Construction of Pucca School Bldg..at Dwarka, Sector-22, Delhi (Composite Work)" (hereafter `the Dwarka Project') to the respondent. The stipulated date of commencement of the Dwarka Project was on 27.03.2003. The Dwarka Project was to be completed within a period of eighteen months, that is, by 26.01.2005.

3. Thereafter, by a memo dated 02.09.2004, the Directorate (Works) Central Public Work Department (CPWD) added Clause 10CA to the agreement. The relevant extract of Clause 10CA reads as under:

"If after submission of the tender, the price of cement and/or steel reinforcement bars incorporated In the works (not being a material supplied from the Engineer-in-charge's stores in accordance with Clause 10 thereof) increase and such increase in the price prevailing at the time of the last stipulated date for receipt of tenders including extension, if any for the work, then the amount of the contract shall accordingly be varied and provided further that-any such increase shall not be payable if such an increase has become operative after the stipulated date of completion of the work in question."

4. In terms of the agreement, the respondent was paid running bills by DSIIDC. By letters dated 08.08.2005 and 16.08.2005, the respondent demanded additional payment from DSIIDC owing to rise in the prices of cement and steel reinforcement bars. Subsequently, by a letter dated 17.08.2005, DSIIDC rejected the respondent's request for escalation.

5. Thereafter, the respondent sought an extension of time to complete the Dwarka Project, which was extended by a period 246 days. DSIIDC contends that by a letter dated 24.04.2006, the respondent acknowledged the breach on its account, and stated that it would not claim any extra amount, on account of extension of time.

6. The respondent raised a Final Bill for an amount of Rs.8,04,135/-. Thereafter, the respondent issued a No Claim Certificate (hereafter `NCC') dated 27.09.2007, inter alia, confirming that with the receipt of the said amount all its claims in respect of the said agreement would stand finally settled. However, by a letter dated 08.11.2007, the respondent withdrew the NCC dated 27.09.2007 and made a demand for an amount of Rs.29,84,196.72/- along with interest from 01.03.2005 until the date of payment by DSIIDC. The respondent claimed that it had issued the NCC under the coercion of DSIIDC.

7. The respondent invoked the arbitration agreement. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act before this Court (being ARB. P. No. 435/2009), seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. By an order dated 18.10.2010, the learned Single Judge directed the Chief Engineer/Administrative Head of DSIIDC to appoint an arbitrator within a period of thirty days from the date of the said order. The relevant extract of the said order reads as under:

"In my view, the submission of the petitioner that no claim certificate was issued under coercion cannot be outrightly rejected and it requires detailed consideration after permitting the partied to lead evidence, if any, in that regard before the arbitral tribunal.

Considering the fact that the arbitration agreement requires the Chief Engineer or Administrative Head of DSIDC to appoint the arbitrator and it further goes on to state that no person shall act as an arbitrator and if no arbitrator is appointed by th