The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, and the emphasis on reasonableness, natural justice, and the principles of the Wednesbury Principle.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 1996') has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) Set aside the impugned Award dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal in the arbitration matter KEC International Ltd. and Delhi Transco Ltd.;

(b) Allow the counter claim made by the petitioner; and

(c) Pass such further and other orders as this Hon'ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances of this case may deem fit for which act of kindness the petitioners as in duty bound shall forever pray."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner is Delhi Transco Ltd., (DTL), a 100% owned public sector electricity transmission utility/undertaking of the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Shakti Sadan, Kotla Road, New Delhi. The petitioner is one of the successors of the Electricity Transmission Company of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board which, in turn, succeeded Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking.

3. The respondent is KEC International (KEC), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its head office at Building No. 9A, 8th Floor, Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurgaon - 122002, formerly known as SAE (India) Ltd. which subsequently became RPG Transmission Ltd. in March 1997.

4. The petitioner issued the Letter of Award (LOA) dated 21st August 1991 to the respondent for the Supply, Erection, Testing, and Commissioning of a 400KV D/C Transmission line from Mandaula to Bawana, Bawana to Bamnauli, and Bamnauli to Ballabhgarh, with a total route length of 99 Kms with 268 towers at a cost of Rs. 26.15 crores.

5. The work commenced, pursuant to the said LOA dated 21st August 1991. Subsequently, the number of towers was increased to 320, whereas the route length was also changed to 113.602 km, and accordingly, the contract's value was also increased to Rs.33,28,34,1323.92.

6. The respondent vide letter dated 9th May, 2000 invoked Clause 25.2 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) for reasonable compensation amounting to INR 1,39,35,899 plus interest calculated @ 15% per annum for INR 58,60,372 for increased costs incurred between 1993 to 1999, owing to alleged delays by the petitioner.

7. The present Arbitral Proceedings were preceded by previous Arbitral Proceedings commenced in 2000. The respondent filed their Statement of Claim on 30th May 2006 followed by the petitioner's Statement of Defence on 5th May 2007.

8. Learned Arbitral Tribunal passed the impugned Award on 29th January, 2015 in favour of the respondent.

9. On being aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 29th January 2015, the petitioner has approached the Court with the instant petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996.

SUBMISSIONS

(On behalf of the petitioner)

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned Award dated 29th January 2015 is liable to be set aside on the grounds of patent illegality and being contrary to the public policy of India.

11. It is submitted that the decision of the learned Arbitral Tribunal is patently illegal and against the public policy with regards to the issues in respect of the limitation such as the claims raised are barred by limitation and the impugned Award in the absence of any cogent evidence, is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and against the public interest.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the claims of the respondent are barred by limitation and are not a continuous breach of action, as the respondent was well aware of the claims, which had been raised in the first letter dated 27th October, 1994 which shows that the respondent was well aware of its right in October 1994 but remained silent and issued the 2nd letter on 8th August, 1999.

13. It is further submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 3 a