The court's decision emphasized the narrow scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act and the importance of presenting evidence to support claims.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. The present appeal has been insinuated under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 21.03.2018 whereby objections filed by the appellant were dismissed and the Arbitral Award dated 16.11.2016 was upheld.

2. The underlying dispute between the parties relates to claim filed by the respondent with respect to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 19.06.2006. The appellant had invited tender for execution of the work of improvement of Narela - Alipur Road by providing RMC (Ready Mix Concrete) in Village Alipur (hereinafter referred to as `RMC Work'). The respondent being the highest bidder was awarded the aforesaid tender vide Work Order dated 19.02.2007 for an estimated amount of Rs.68.77 lacs. On 19.02.2007, an Agreement was executed between the parties. As per the Work Order, the respondent was required to lay 1200 meters length of road with average width of 6.5 meter and average depth of 0.20 meter for laying RMC. Respondent was paid an amount of Rs.45,68,244/- (after necessary deductions) totaling to a gross amount of Rs.50,25,247/-.

3. The respondent invoked arbitration in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement thereby claiming that the entire work was completed within the stipulated time on 27.06.2007. Respondent's liability for maintenance for one year was over in June 2008 however, neither the balance payment was made nor amount deposited towards the Security deposit was refunded. Respondent also claimed amount towards payment made to Siri Ram Institute for testing charges; interest @ 12% from the date of completion of work till realization alongwith interest for delayed payment of 1st running bill; cost of proceedings; and the escalation difference from date of completion of work till realization.

4. The Arbitral Tribunal passed the Award on 16.11.2016 thereby allowing the respondent's claim towards the refund of security deposit alongwith 9% simple interest from June 2008 till date of award and amount towards the balance payment. The claim towards testing charges was rejected. The Tribunal noted that that there was no bar in the Agreement for paying interest on the amounts claimed/awarded. It allowed 9% simple interest on amount towards the balance payment. The interest @ 9% simple interest on delayed payment of 1st running bill was awarded for 1 month. Further, though the amount for cost of proceedings was allowed but the claim for amount towards escalation difference was rejected.

Pertinently, while arguing its objections filed under Section 34 of the Act, the appellant restricted its challenge to only two grounds, the first being non-completion of work by the respondent, as the quality of the road including its thickness was not found as per the specifications, and the second being the award of interest as it was not stipulated in the Agreement. While dismissing the first contention, the impugned order recorded that appellant did not lead any evidence in that regard. Insofar as second contention is concerned, it was also rejected on the ground that the Tribunal had awarded only pendente lite and future interest @ 11% per annum on failing to make the payment within 3 months of passing of the award.

5. Before proceeding further, let me first deal with the scope of an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act.

6. There is no gainsaying that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 37 of the Act is limited in scope. In this regard, it is deemed expedient to advert to the decision in State of Jharkhand and Others v. HSS Integrated SDN and Another reported as (2019) 9 SCC 798, where the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"7. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal can be interfered with in the proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act only in a case where the finding is perverse and/or contrary to the evidence and/or the same is ag