The limited scope of intervention by Courts in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need to satisfy specific grounds for setting aside an arbitral award.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Set aside the impugned arbitral Award dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Sh. Girish Joshi in the arbitration proceedings to the extent under challenge before this Hon'ble Court in the present objection petition;

(ii) Allow claims of the Petitioner and award the amounts claimed under the Statement of Claims with respect to the Claims No. 1,8, 10 & 11; and

(iii) Pass any such other orders as deemed to be fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. Mr. Manish Mohan, learned CGSC for the petitioner submitted that the Sole Arbitrator while deciding the issue of delay/prolongation of contract held 'delay attributable to both the parties' and further while deciding the issue of wrongful cancellation of contract held 'the cancellation of contract as illegal'.

3. It is submitted that the impugned Award is contrary to law and public policy in as much as the perusal of the impugned Award shows apparent contradictions in the reasoning given by the Sole Arbitrator while awarding the amount against the individual claims.

4. It is stated that the Sole Arbitrator observed that time was essence of the contract and was voidable at the option of the Promisee in conformity with Section 55 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. Further, the Sole Arbitrator specifically concluded that the extension of time of 463 days, as against 365 days for the contract period, was reasonable for completing the work. It is also stated that the Arbitrator has observed that there was enough evidence to show that the Accepting Officer was right on the grounds of merit in cancelling the contract under the powers vested in him through contract conditions. Therefore, the cancellation of contract cannot be termed as illegal.

5. It is submitted that the Sole Arbitrator awarded past interest @ 9% from 12.01.2014 to 18.07.2016, pendente-lite interest @ 9% from 19.07.2016 to 20.05.2019 and future interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of the Award till the implementation of the Award and 12% beyond the period of 90 days from the receipt of the impugned Award, in favour of the Respondent, however, the same was denied to the Petitioner despite the observations of the Arbitrator having concluded the delay/prolongation of contract attributable to both the parties. Therefore, it is submitted that the Arbitrator ought to have at least granted the statutory limitation period of 120 days to the Petitioner for complying with the impugned Award, as a matter of right.

6. It is further submitted that in view of the glaring contradictions in the impugned Award as well as the same being contrary to law and public policy, the Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator merits to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no basis whatsoever to the challenges being leveled by the petitioner against the impugned Award.

8. It is submitted that the Respondent was entrusted with the work of providing external water supply and sewerage disposal for five different sites at (1) Tigris Road (2) Sumaran Road (3) Rangpuri (4) Hiran Kudna (5) Nau Sena Bagh; all these sites were quite apart from each other, but were contained in a single contract. Simultaneously, three separate contractors were working at the same site and all three contractors were under three different departmental agencies.

9. It is submitted that the Sole Arbitrator has held that time was not the essence of the contract, and took into consideration the totality of facts while taking a reasonable view of the matter. The Sole Arbitrator further held that the Petitioner was at fault while cancelling the contract, hence, the Respondent is entitled to receive his claims along with other reliefs.

10. It is further submitted that having acc