The main legal point established in the judgment is the restricted jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the principles for interference with arbitral awards. The judgment also emphasizes the discretion of the arbitrator in choosing the method for assessment of damages and the relevance of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) in determining damages and compensation.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') challenging the Arbitral Award dated 24.02.2018 and as further amended by Additional Award dated 02.05.2018 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the petitioner has partially accepted the Arbitral Award as is reflected by its communication dated 30.07.2018 placed on record by the petitioner. The said communication records the extent/area of agreement and disagreement with respect to the nine claims raised by the respondent, in the form of a table, which is reproduced herein below:

3. The disputes between the parties arose out of the Agreement No.08/EE/LHD/2010-11 for the work of construction of Dharamshala for Dr. R.M.L Hospital at Mandir Marg, New Delhi, including electrical wiring.

CLAIM NO. 1:

4. As far as Claim no.1 is concerned, the respondent had claimed inter-alia the balance amount payable against the Final Bill under the head of extra and substituted item rates. The learned Sole Arbitrator considered the said claim and inter-alia held as under:

"From details of RA bills paid it is seen that most of the extra/substituted and deviated quantities of work have been executed between Oct. 2012 to April 2014. As per preface given in DSR- 2013 it's rates are based on the prevailing market rates of materials in Delhi between Jan. 2013 to March 2013 and the labour rates adopted are as per minimum wages issued by Govt. of Delhi w.e.f. 1/4/2013. DSR- 2014 is based on the prevailing market rates of materials in Delhi as on 01.04.2014 and the labour rates adopted are as per minimum wages rates issued by Govt. of Delhi w.e.f. 1/4/2014. In absence of production of any documentary evidence of market rates by any party I consider average rates of DSR 2013 and DSR 2014 to be generally representative of the prevailing market rates. In some cases, rate shown as full rate in previous running account bills has been reduced drastically after completion of work in the final bill, which is not permissible, as contractor proceeded with work based upon acceptance of a higher rates."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing reference to the petitioner's letter dated 16.04.2018, which he claims to be an application under Section 33 of the Act filed before the learned Sole Arbitrator, submits that it is the case of the petitioner that the learned Arbitrator has awarded an excess amount of Rs.1,82,988.35 to the respondent, as was explained by the petitioner in Annexure A1 to the said communication. Primarily, the said objection is that instead of taking the average of DSR 2013 and DSR 2014, the learned Sole Arbitrator should have taken the average of DSR 2012 and DSR 2013 on account of his finding that most of the extra/substituted and deviated quantities of work have been executed between October 2012 and April 2014.

6. I am unable to find merit in the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. It need not be reemphasised that the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the Act is highly restricted and can primarily be invoked only where it is shown that the learned Arbitrator has acted beyond jurisdiction or has rendered a finding whi