The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period under the Arbitration Act and the requirement for parties to exercise their rights within a reasonable time.

ORDER

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

"i) set-aside the impugned Award passed by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, being patently illegal and against the 'public policy' and;

ii) pass any other Order/relief(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. A perusal of the record reveals that pursuant to a tender bearing No. 1-Aces/Tender/SSB/65 dated 4th April 2011 floated by the petitioner, the respondent was awarded the work for `construction of printing press hall, training centre and other allied works in connection with modernization of printing press at Shakurbasti, New Delhi' vide Award bearing No. 74-W/13/Misc./Acceptance/WA/SSB. Accordingly, the claimant/respondent was requested to complete the work within a period of 15 months from the date of issue of acceptance letter.

3. Due to delays and other issues in completion of the work as per the Agreement between the parties, the respondent herein invoked arbitration clause by way of letter dated 1st October 2012. The respondent, thereafter, approached this Court seeking constitution of Arbitral Tribunal invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The said petition came to be disposed of on 26th May 2014 with the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal, comprising of three Arbitrators.

4. Accordingly, the arbitration proceedings were initiated for adjudication of disputes between the parties, with the filing of the Statement of Claim on 27th October 2014. Upon completion of pleadings and hearing in the matter, the impugned Award was passed on 24th February 2018.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said Award and is, hence, before this Court by way of filing the instant petition assailing the same.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being aggrieved of the impugned Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, approached the District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, however, upon finding that the value of the petition was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction, the petitioner withdrew the petition so filed.

7. Before this Court, the petitioner has raised inter alia the following objections qua the impugned Award:

a. The Arbitral Tribunal violated the provision under Section 34(2)(b)(II) of the Arbitration Act and as such the impugned Award is against the public policy.

b. The impugned Award is patently illegal and hence, liable to be set aside the impugned Award is liable to be set aside, as it is patently illegal in view of the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal has passed the award on 24th February 2018 directing to the petitioner to comply the same within 45 days vide Para No. 22.1, 22.2 and 22.3 of the Award from the date of publishing the Award, failing which simple interest @ 120/- p.a. shall be payable by the respondent to the claimant till the payment of Arbitral Award and in this manner. Section 34(3) of the Act allows the aggrieved party to file the objection, if any, within 3 months and further within a period of 30 days.

c. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,420/- on account of expenses with regard to transportation, loading and unloading of 121 bags of cement @ Rs.20/- per bag, however, the respondent herein is not entitled for an amount of Rs.2,420/-, as such; in the absence of any material evidence on record, the Award of Rs.2,420/- is liable to be set-aside, being patently illegal.

d. The learned Arbitral Tribunal allowed Claim No. A for an amount of Rs.67,93,645/- against claimed amount of Rs.80,67,494/-, which had been claimed on account of business loss due to prolongation of the contract period. The learned Tribunal, vide Para No.21.1.6 to 21.1.14 awarded this amount after applying Hudson's Formula, but did not consider the facts and evide