The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting aside an award.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

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

"a) Set aside the impugned Award dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal to the extent that it disallow the claims of the Petitioner;

b) allow the Claims of the Petitioner;

c) Pass any other order/s, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner is a private limited company, carrying on the business of construction and development.

3. The respondent is a limited corporation and a joint venture by the Govt. Of India and Govt. Of NCT of Delhi carrying on development of the metro rail in the NCT of Delhi.

4. The respondent released a tender for `Architectural finishing works at 7 elevated stations (Inderlok, Ashok Park Main, Punjab Bagh East, Shivaji Park, Madipur, Patel Nagar-II, Kirti Nagar-II), on Inderlok Mundka line of Phase-II of Delhi MRTS Project'. The contract was awarded to the petitioner herein above and was further termed as `Contract BA-7G'.

5. The Contract Agreement was executed between the parties on 14th October 2008 for a sum of Rs. 33,76,81,216.12/-. The work was to be completed within 14 months of the issue of the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) dated 18th August 2008. The payments were to be made as per Bill of Quantities (BOQ).

6. The respondent being unsatisfied with the delay in execution of the work, issued a termination notice to the petitioner on 21st May 2010 and followed with the termination letter on 4th June 2010, asking the petitioner to withdraw their labour and material from the sites and clear their accounts after joint measurement of work carried out so far in the bill to be considered as last bill. After termination of the contract, there were disputes with regard to the joint measurement.

7. On 11th May 2013, petitioner issued a communication under clause 20 of the General Condition of Contract (GCC) and referred the claims to the engineer nominated by the respondent. On 7th June 2013, the Engineer called upon the petitioner to submit the details in support of their claim, accordingly petitioner submitted their documents. The engineer nominated by the respondent declined the claims of the petitioner due to it being false. On 27th August 2013, the petitioner further invoked clause 20.5 of the GCC for appointment of Arbitrator and then the Arbitral Tribunal came to be constituted.

8. On invocation of Arbitration by the Contractor vide letter dated 27th August 2013, the respondent rejected the same being time-barred several times. The cost settlement Bill was prepared by the respondent based on part measurements done jointly with the contractor and the balance measurements taken on their own by the respondent in the absence of the Contractor and made the last payment on dated 19th August 2013. The Arbitrator panel was formed through nominations.

9. Finally, on 28th September 2018, the impugned Arbitral Award was passed.

10. Hence, on being aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 28th September 2018 the Petitioner has approached this Court with the instant petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

SUBMISSIONS

(On behalf of the petitioner)

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Impugned Award passed is patently illegal and not in accordance with the law.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that they were responsible for executing architectural finishing works of the 7 elevated stations. The progress was slowed down due to the non-availability of work fronts caused by the main civil contractor. It is submitted that the said execution of the part of the work of the main civil contractor M/s. IDEB- SUCG (JV) was assigned to the petitioner after the expiry of the date of completion of its orig