The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference by the courts in arbitral awards and the specific grounds for challenging an arbitral award as laid down in the Arbitration Act and interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. 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 setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 28th July 2018 (hereinafter "the Award") passed by a three-member Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter "learned Tribunal").

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. A brief background of the dispute between the parties before this Court is delineated hereunder:

a. The petitioner is the Government of India Undertaking responsible for maintenance, management and development of National Highways or stretch of the National Highways vested in or entrusted to it by the Central Government. The respondent is a Multi-National Company registered as per the laws of Republic of Korea, represented by its Power of Attorney, Mr. S. J. Kim, working largely in the field of infrastructure development, including construction of roads, highways, dockyards and other such projects across the world.

b. The petitioner awarded a contract for construction of a four lane Highway at the Jhansi-Lakhanadon section between km 351 to km 405.77, National Highway-26 in the state of Madhya Pradesh to the respondent vide Letter of Acceptance dated 30th December 2005.

c. During the course of carrying out the work contracted between the parties, two major disputes arose amongst them, which was narrowed down by the learned Tribunal as under:

A. Refusal and Delay of the Engineer/Respondent for issuance of Defect Liability Certificate (DLC);

B. Refusal of the Engineer/Respondent for determination of new rates for additional/new works instructed the Engineer/Respondent and as per the variation Clause 51.1(c), (d), (e) and (f).

d. Subsequently, upon completion and conclusion of arbitration proceedings, the Arbitral Award dated 28th July 2018 was passed and the following findings were made therein:

Regarding Claim A

i. The Claimant Contractor, M/s. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Gurgaon is partly entitled for Claim. No. 1 i.e. Refusal and Delay of the Engineer/Respondent for issuance of Defect Liability Certificate (DLC).

ii. The Respondent/Employer, the National Highway Authority of India New Delhi shall pay Rs.24,69,892/- to the Claimant Contractor, M/s. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. Gurgaon as per the Tribunals findings as detailed out under sub para 9.3.0 to 9.6.7 supra.

iii. The Respondent, the National Highway Authority of India shall pay interest on delayed payments from 01.04.2015 to the date of award amounting to Rs.8,05,926/- to the Claimant as per AT's findings under Sub para 9.8.0 to 9.8.3 supra.

Regarding Claim B

i. The Claimant Contractor, M/s. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co.Ltd., Gurgaon is not entitled for Claim No.2 (Or Claim B) i.e. Refusal of the Engineer/Respondent for determination of new rates for additional/new works instructed by the Engineer/Respondent and as per variation clause 51.1 (c), (d), (e) & (f)

ii. The Respondent/Employer, the National Highway Authority of India New Delhi shall pay nil amount to the Claimant Contractor, M/s. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co.Ltd. Gurgaon as per the Tribunals findings as detailed out under sub para 9.7.0 to 9.7.7 supra.

iii. In view of Arbitral Tribunals decision under sub para 10.2 (i) & (ii) above, AT awards nil amount as interest.

e. The petitioner being aggrieved by the findings of the learned Tribunal has approached Court challenging the same under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal, while passing the Award, did not appreciate that the respondent miserably failed to complete the project without defects within the stipulated time. Since the project was not completed within time, a supplementary agreement had to be executed between the parties on 11th February 2009.

4. It is submitted that the entire claim of the respondent before the learned Tribun