The Court held that the Arbitral Award does not suffer from any infirmities enshrined in Section 34 of the Act. The Impugned is not in conflict with the public policy of India. Further, the learned Tribunal has specifically excluded the excepted matters and has not dealt with them in the award. The Court also held that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to try and decide on the merits of the claims before deciding them as excepted matters first.

JUDGMENT

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

"In premise of the submissions made herein above, it is most respectfully prayed:

a. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the arbitration case between the parties from the Ld. Sole Arbitrator;

b. That this Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to set aside the impugned Award dated 07.10.2019 passed by the Sole Arbitrator;

Pass such order or further orders that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner in interest of justice."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The present petition is filed under Section 34 of the Act challenging the Arbitral Award dated 7th October, 2019 (hereinafter referred as `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal in the matter titled as M/s J.S. Constructions v. Union of India.

3. The petitioner is Railway Organization which is a part of Union of India. M/s J&S Construction (claimant/respondent) is engaged in the business of undertaking railway contracts and other construction works.

4. A tender was floated by the petitioner for "balance work of earthwork in formation in embankment and cutting, including mechanical construction from KM 72.280 to KM 65.00, construction of minor bridges of boxes, RCC slabs, hume pipes etc; various protection and other allied civil works between Vijayaypur Jammu-Samba (excluding) in connection with doubling of Jalandhar-Pathankot-Jammu Tawi section (Risk and Cost Tender)".

5. The claimant submitted a bid offer/quotation on 8th April, 2011 and the work was awarded to the respondent vide letter bearing No. 74.W/1/1Acceptance/WA/JAT/D dated 23rd June, 2011. The respondent was requested to submit Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-. Subsequently, a contract bearing No. 75Acs/Dy.CE/C/D/JAT dated 6th September, 2011 was entered into between the parties. The accepted cost of the project was Rs.7,08,00,479.13/-.

6. The claimant was intimated by the petitioner that the progress of work within 6 months is only up to 11.5% pursuant to which the claimant was directed to submit test reports and to take immediate steps to complete all six minor bridges. Resultantly, there were several extensions given and taken in the course of the completion of the project.

7. Extensions 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th were due to natural causes like heavy rains, sudden flow of chemical water in bridge No. 167 and hindrances due to the encounter of S&T cables etc. Extensions 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th were for `delayed and unplanned release of the contractor`s bill` due to which the cash flow of the contractor was affected badly, the labour fled and rearranging of the same took time. Extensions 9th and 10th were due to the stoppage of work in railway land by the Department of Geology and Mining on 22nd April, 2014. The actual date of completion of the project was 31st December, 2014.

8. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the claimant/respondent with regard to the pending payment. On 11th January, 2016, the claimant/respondent wrote a letter to the General Manager (GM), Northern Railway (part of petitioner), invoking the arbitration clause. The claimant claimed a total of 11 claims amounting to Rs.6,64,26,730.43/- along with interest of 24% p.a. Thereafter, an arbitral tribunal was constituted in terms of the said clause.

9. The arbitration proceedings commenced before the learned Arbitrator (previously constituted Arbitral Tribunal) and it is stated by the claimant/respondent that out of the 11 claims, only 5 claims, No. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 have been referred by the petitioner to the Arbitral learned to the tune of Rs.2,15,69,042.43/- along with counterclaims of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.30,94,087/-. The remaining 6 claims were not referred as being `excepted matt