The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Section 34 and 37 of the Act, 1996, and the need for valid permissible grounds for challenging an arbitral award.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. The present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996") has been filed challenging the Common Order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial) Central District, Tis Hazari, dismissing both the petitions under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, preferred by the appellant and the respondent herein against the Arbitral Award dated 30.01.2019.

2. The facts in brief are that, the respondent herein, M/s Sweka Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was awarded Work Order No. EE(E)-Project/SYS/2010-2011/5 dated 16.07.2010 by the appellant herein/Municipal Corporation of Delhi for providing street light arrangement and ancillary work in different roads/streets of the Karol Bagh Zone. In pursuance to the said Work Order, the appellant entered into a contract dated 25.03.2010 with the respondent.

3. During the course of execution of work, certain disputes arose between the parties and accordingly, a Notice for settlement of disputes through arbitration in terms of the Agreement between the parties, was sent by the respondent to the appellant. However, on receiving no response from the appellant, a petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 was preferred which was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 02.04.2013 and Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra (Retd.) was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator, however, recused himself on 14.03.2017.

4. Thereafter, the Commissioner, MCD appointed Professor (Er.) O.P. Gupta, VSM (Retd. Chief Engineer, MCD) as the substitute Arbitrator, who made the Award dated 30.01.2019 vide which the respondent's claims were partly allowed and the Counter-Claim of the appellant was dismissed. Both, the appellant as well as respondent, have challenged the Order under Section 34 of the Act, 1996.

5. To understand the grounds of challenge, it would be necessary to give a vignette of facts. The respondent, in terms of the Contract, was required to provide street light arrangement and ancillary work in different roads/streets of the Karol Bagh Zone and to complete the work within six months i.e., upto 15.01.2011. The respondent/claimant herein filed the following six Claims before the Sole Arbitrator:

6. The appellant filed its Counter-Claim for compensation/penalty for slow performance and delay in execution of the work in the sum of Rs.63,61,942/- along with the interest @ 18% per annum, in addition to Arbitration cost of Rs.5,00,000/-.

7. The Sole Arbitrator vide Award dated 30.01.2019 allowed the Claim Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6 i.e., payment of final bill; refund of security; the interest @ 9% per annum and the costs. The Claim Nos. 3 and 4 were not pressed by the claimant. The Arbitrator made the following orders:

"Order:

Considering the pleadings of both the parties, documentary evidences, on record, arguments made by learned counsels, examination/consideration of the case