The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting contractual provisions in accordance with their plain language and the grounds for challenging an award under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. By way of present appeal filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), the appellant impugns the order dated 15.12.2018 passed in Arbitration Case No. 68/2017 whereby its objections filed under Section 34 of the Act against the Award dated 27.07.2018 were dismissed.

2. The parties are related to each other through a Contract Agreement dated 21.03.2014, whereby the Appellant had engaged the respondent as a Contractor for collection of User Fee at Kharik Toll Plaza at km 333.150 (for length of 69.961 km at Khagaria-Purnia Section of NH-31 in the State of Bihar). The respondent was appointed pursuant to an e-tender issued by the appellant. The contract period was for one year i.e., from 25.03.2014 to 24.03.2015.

3. The respondent alleged loss of revenue and lodged a claim for damages to the tune of Rs.1,35,26,024/- on account of reduction in the collection of User Fee in the period from 03.07.2014 to 24.11.2014. The respondent also sought return of penalty amount of Rs.88,93,346.00 levied on it by the appellant. Additionally, interest @ 18% p.a. was claimed on the principal sum awarded alongwith cost of litigation.

4. Vide Award dated 27.07.2016, the Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter, referred to as `AT') awarded the following claims.

"7.5 SUMMARY OF AWARD:

Following amounts are awarded against respective Claim:

5. The Appellant felt aggrieved by the award and filed objections under Section 34 of the Act, inter-alia including the ground that AT has travelled beyond the agreed terms of the Contract Agreement and erred in the interpretation of clause 25. The Objections were dismissed by the Court vide the impugned order.

6. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has premised the appellant's challenge on Clause 9 of the Contract Agreement to contend that the Award suffered from patent illegality as the claim was barred under the aforesaid clause. It was also contended that though the respondent had relied on Clause 25 i.e., Force Majeure Clause in the Contract Agreement to justify its claims however, it did not follow the procedure provided in the said clause, inasmuch as, no prior notice was given to the appellant. Lastly, it was contended that to justify its claims, respondent had to necessarily show losses suffered by it but the material placed on record would rather reveal that against the bid of Rs.14.33 crores, respondent had earned a sum of Rs.17.74 crores. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Steel Authroity of India Ltd. v. J.C. Budharaja, Government & Mining Contractor reported as (1999) 8 SCC 122 and State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. v. Sal Udyog Private Limited reported as (2022) 2 SCC 275.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant's reliance on Clause 9 of the Contract Agreement is misplaced as the respondent had filed its claim solely on the basis of Clause 25. Insofar as contention raised with respect to process under Force Majeure Clause not being followed, it was submitted that no such contention was even raised either before the learned Arbitrator or filed under Section 34 of the Act. It was contended that the relevant data for the months from July to November, 2014 would show that the respondent suffered reduced earnings, and it can't be said that since the User Fee collection exceeded the bid price, the Respondent did not suffer a loss. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on Hary