ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Arbitration Act') has been filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing the Arbitral Award dated 12th March 2022 and seeking the following reliefs:

"a. To set aside the impugned Award dated 12.03.2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal with respect to the Claim No. 6.

b. Award costs of the proceedings in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent;

c. Pass such further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. The facts delineated hereunder have led to the filing of the instant petition before this Court:

a. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of civil engineering infrastructure projects. The respondent invited tenders for the work of `Construction of Office Building for ASI at 24 Tilak Marg, New Delhi including Electrical Installation' for an estimated cost of Rs. 24,85,51,972/-. The petitioner was declared the successful bidder for the said work vide letter No. 3983 dated 27th September 2012 and accordingly, the parties also executed an Agreement dated 18th October 2012.

b. The stipulated date for the completion of work was 17th April 2014, however, the work was delayed and completed on 30th January 2017, i.e. after a delay of 2 year and 9 months.

c. The final bill was raised by the petitioner on 18th October 2018, however, the respondent failed to clear the dues. Hence, disputes arose between the parties. For the resolution of such disputes, the respondent vide its letter dated 31st December 2019 appointed a Sole Arbitrator.

d. Arbitration proceedings were initiated amongst the parties and the Sole Arbitrator, after conclusion of the proceedings passed the Arbitral Award on 12th March 2022.

e. The said Award was decided partially in favour of the petitioner, and hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking setting aside of the findings and decision of the Arbitrator qua Claim No. 6, whereby the provision under Clause 2A of the Agreement for bonus/incentive @5% amounting to Rs. 1,09,38,144/- which was requested to be extended, was disallowed by the Arbitrator.

3. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the findings of the Arbitrator regarding Claim No. 6 are patently erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record and in ignorance of the documents, including the Contract between the parties. It is submitted that the Arbitrator assumed that the petitioner was not entitled for the bonus/incentive in Claim No. 6 without considering the evidence on record.

4. It is submitted that the documents on record clearly showed that the delay caused in completion of the work was due to the respondent. It is submitted that work was delayed time and again as the respondent and the agencies employed by them such as HVAC work, fire-fighting work, lift, cable laying etc. lacked coordination and efficiency. Further, the petitioner requested for the electricity connection installed as it required technical staff and further requested for issue of drawings because the petitioner was eager to complete the work at the earliest but it was found that not a single drawing was available with the respondent. The petitioner on their part went on reminding the respondent about non- issuance of drawings but no action was taken. It is, hence, submitted that the delay caused in the completion of work was attributable to the respondent and there was no delay on the part of the petitioner.

5. It is submitted that the Arbitrator has after consideration of the documents and evidence on record under Claim No. 2 and Claim No. 5 given a finding that the whole delay in execution of the contract was on the part of the respondent. However, in contradiction to its statement held that the petitioner was not entitled to the bonus/incentive.

6. It is further submitted tha