Limited intervention of the Courts in arbitral proceedings is intended by the legislature. An Arbitral Award may only be set aside if it is patently illegal, against the public policy of India, based on no evidence, or delineates no reason for passing the Award.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant 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 seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Set aside the claim no. 1 (Part-I) S. No. 11 and Claim 12 in Arbitral Award dated 12.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator Sh. Dinesh Kumar, in the matter between parties herein holding that the Respondent is not at all entitled for any claim, demand and money against the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

b) This petition may kindly be allowed as prayed for with cost and/or.

c) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent in the interest of justice."

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

a. The respondent is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of civil engineering infrastructure projects. The petitioner 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 respondent 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 respondent on 18th October 2018, however, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner failed to clear the dues. Hence, disputes arose between the parties. For the resolution of such disputes, the petitioner 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 and Order dated 2nd May 2022.

e. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said Award and Order has approached this Court, challenging the findings of the Sole Arbitrator for Claim Nos. 1 (Part I) S, 11 and 12, which were decided in the favour of the respondent.

3. Mr. Niraj Kumar, learned Senior Central Government counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Award has been passed without considering the relevant documents and claims before the Arbitrator. It is submitted that Arbitrator failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of his own appointment at the time of raising its own fee and awarding Claim No.12.

4. It is further submitted that the Arbitrator failed to appreciate that the respondent in its claim was silent on the unexplainable delay of 668 days beyond the stipulated period mentioned in the Agreement for completion work order and the Sole Arbitrator did not consider this fallacy while passing the Award. It is submitted that the delay was attributable only to the petitioner, however, the same was not considered by the Arbitrator.

5. It is submitted that the competent authority granted extension of time without levying compensation in the interest of work to finalize the contract without any dispute. The respondent was pursued from time to time to expedite the progress of the work, however, the respondent did not make sincere effort to maintain the progress as envisaged under Clause 5 of the Agreement despite repeated requests made by the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that dealing with the claims of the respondent by the Sole Arbitrator in light of the above stated clauses was beyond the powers vested in him by the prevalent laws. The Sole Arbitrator has ignored Clauses 1.14 and 1.17 under the heading of Temporary Earth Retaining Structure and Clauses 2 and 3 under the heading of Additional Specifications of Agreement.

7.