JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved with the judgment dated 01.05.2010 passed by learned ADJ-04, North District, Delhi in C.S. No.15/2010, whereby the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act') were dismissed and the Award dated 06.11.2009 upheld.

2. Notably, the appellant floated a tender for providing and fixing Retro- Reflective Sign Board on Maharshi Parshuram Marg in C-29 II, Delhi. The respondent participated in the tender and was awarded the work vide Work- Order No.933/EE/RD1/RZ/TC/03-04/31/11 dated 09.03.2004. The contractual amount was Rs.3,16,899/- and the time for completion of work was three months. Indisputably, the respondent completed the work within time i.e. 22.05.2004 and submitted a bill for an amount of Rs.2,93,857/-. On 30.11.2004, the appellant cleared the said bill and passed a sanction order for an amount of Rs.2,66,398/-. The said amount however was not paid for the reason that the CBI had registered an FIR with respect to the sub-standard quality of work in cases relating to fixation of Retro- Reflective Sign Board and the officials of the appellant-Corporation as well as the respondent were named as accused persons therein.

The respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, resulting in passing of the Award on 06.11.2009, whereby its claim of Rs.2,93,857/- for the work done and refund of earnest money of Rs.7,750/- was allowed. The Arbitrator also awarded interest @ 15% per annum on the above amounts from 01.05.2007 till the date of award. In addition, Rs. 73,000/- were directed to be paid towards cost of the arbitration proceedings. The objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act came to be dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

3. Ms. Tanu Priya Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that as per Clause 25 of the Contract Agreement, any challenge was required to be raised by the respondent within 120 days of 30.11.2004, whereas the arbitration proceedings were initiated much later and thus, the claim was time barred. It was next contended that the learned ADJ ought to have interfered with the impugned award in terms of sub-section 2(a)(v)(b), Section 34 of the Act for the reason that the matter was under investigation by the CBI. In support, learned counsel referred to the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. and Another reported as (1997) 4 SCC 366, DDA v. K.C. Chibber & Co. reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2110: and Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj v. Union of India reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4355.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the grounds raised in the present appeal are beyond the scope of Section 37 of the Act. It was submitted that the Work Order in the present case was never under CBI investigation and the charge-sheet filed consequently was in relation to some other Work Order. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

i. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Natraj Construction Company reported as 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2501

ii. Swiss Timing Limited v. Commonwealth Games 2010 Organizing Committee reported as (2014) 6 SCC 677;

iii. ADTV Communication Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Aez Infratech Pvt. Ltd.) v. Vibha Goel & Ors. reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8843; and

iv. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited reported as (2022) 1 SCC 131.

5. There is no gainsaying that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 37 of the Act is limited in scope. In this regard, it is deemed expedient to advert to the decision in State of Jharkhand and Others v. HSS Integrated SDN and Another reported as (2019) 9 SCC 798, where the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"7. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal can be interfered with in the proceedings under Sec