The interpretation of the contract as given by the Arbitral Tribunal is to be accepted if plausible, and the court should be slow in interfering with concurrent findings unless there is apparent perversity in the arbitral award.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.: (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging the impugned judgment dated 17th August, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P. (COMM) No. 506/2020. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition of appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

2. The first objection raised on behalf of appellant is with respect to finding of the learned Single Judge wherein, the objection of appellant pertaining to withholding of amount by it of sum of Rs. 2,49,74,638/- from the amounts claimed by respondent, was rejected. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant has strenuously argued that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the aforesaid amount was rightly withheld by appellant since respondent was obliged to comply with the requirements under The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 ("BOCW Act"). It is further contended that while the learned Arbitrator held that respondent herein was not liable to make any payment under the BOCW Act, the learned Single Judge has erred in not giving any finding as to whether the decision of the learned Arbitrator in this regard was correct. It is contended that the learned Single Judge did not examine the said question and upheld the award on that account on some different reasoning by holding that appellant herein had not incurred any liability or made any payment towards alleged dues under the BOCW Act. It is, thus, contended that finding of the learned Single Judge on this account is liable to be set aside.

3. It is next contended on behalf of appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that in terms of Clause 9.3.7 of the contract dated 16.03.2009 between the parties, appellant was to receive the necessary and correct documents to enable it to realise Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) and Value Added Tax (VAT) credit payment from the appropriate authority, and the shortfall, if any, was to be realised by appellant from respondent. Respondent had supplied documents for realisation of Rs. 8,36,36,168/- only towards CENVAT and VAT credit from the appropriate authority, therefore, appellant was entitled to recover the shortfall of the remaining guaranteed CENVAT and VAT credit from respondent.

4. The third contention raised on behalf of appellant is with respect to finding of the learned Single Judge whereby the submission of appellant that the agreement between the parties prohibited grant of any price variation, was rejected as being without any merit. Learned senior counsel for appellant has relied upon Clause 1.1 of Appendix 4 of the contract in order to contend that no price adjustment ought to have been allowed. However, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the criteria laid down for grant of price variation under the contract.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent has justified the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. The first contention raised on behalf of appellant pertains to the finding that respondent herein was not liable for any payment under the BOCW Act. While dealing with the said aspect, the learned Arbitral Tribunal had held as follows:-

"23. The Respondent has argued that in accordance with the clause 39 of the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC) the claimant is responsible for the implementation of all statutory rules and regulations including the Building and Other Conditions of the Contract Act, 1966 (BOCW Act), if applicable, and the claimant was required to quote the price accordingly. The Respondent has withheld an amount of Rs.2,49,74,638/- on this account. In response the claimant stat