The court emphasized the importance of evidence in arbitral proceedings and clarified the scope of interference under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. The present petition has been preferred under Section 34 of the A&C Act^{1 [The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996]} assailing the Arbitral Award dated 23.12.2022 (hereafter, `the impugned Award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. For the ease of reference, petitioner herein shall be referred to as "Contractor" and the respondent/claimant as "Sub-contractor".

3. The Contractor was awarded BTG Civil and Structural Work in 1350 MW thermal power project at Sinner, Nasik, Maharashtra by M/s India Bulls Infrastructure Company Ltd. (Principal Employer)^{2 [Principal Employer, i.e., India Bull Infrastructure Company Ltd.]}, vide a letter of award dated 05.05.2011. The contract value of the works awarded was Rs.201.51 crores.

4. Part of the works-pertaining to steel fabrication and erection-was sub-contracted by the Contractor to the Sub-contractor under an MOU dated 02.07.2011 executed by them. One of the conditions of the MOU was that the terms and conditions of the contract between the PE and the Contractor would be applicable to the Sub-contractor in respect of portion of works sub-contracted to it.

5. Pursuant to the MOU, a letter of award dated 26.07.2011 was issued by the Contractor in favour of the Sub-contractor.

6. The PE, Contractor and the Sub-contractor also entered into a tripartite agreement dated 06.08.2011, defining the scope of work, role of each party and the relationship between them.

7. In accordance with the Clause 13 of the MoU and Clause 1 of the tripartite agreement, the Sub-Contractor, furnished an advance Bank Guarantee in favour of the PE equivalent to 5% of the contract value amounting to Rs.3,81,78,000/- from the State Bank of India, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, 1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, in favour of the PE, for and on behalf of the Contractor.

8. The Sub-contractor undertook the works of structural steel fabrication and erection for Mill & Bunker Bay at Unit 6-10, Phase-II, Sinner TPP, Nasik between August, 2011 to November, 2011, when it was verbally asked by the Contractor to stop the work.

9. In the meeting held on 17.11.2011 between the Contractor and Sub-contractor, the former officially informed the latter, about the foreclosure of the work at Phase II, and in its place, assigned the work of structural steel fabrication and erection for Mill & Bunker Bay at Unit 4-5, Phase I, Sinner TPP, Nasik.

10. As the Sub-contractor had to mobilise the equipment and manpower from Phase II to Phase I, the parties agreed that the additional cost incurred by the Sub-contractor, which was not part of the earlier cost estimate, would be borne by the PE on actual basis.

11. On 05.12.2011, a fresh work order relating to Phase I work was executed by the Contractor in favour of Sub-contractor. The work at Phase I commenced in December, 2011 and was carried on till June, 2012, when the Contractor again orally informed the Sub-contractor to stop the work.

12. The Sub-contractor complained that even though the Contractor had received the payments from the PE for the work carried out by it at both the sites, however, the Sub-contractor's running bills remained unpaid by the Contractor.

13. Disputes between the parties remaining unresolved, the Sub-contractor invoked the Arbitration clause. Resultantly, vide order dated 27.03.2019 passed in ARB. P. 64/2019, this Court referred the parties to the AT [Arbitral Tribunal] comprising of Justice Ajit Bharioke (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator.

14. Upon hearing the parties, the AT delivered the impugned Award on 23.12.2022. The Sub-contractor filed an application under Section 33 of the A&C Act seeking correction of errors. The application was opposed by the Contractor and was eventually rejected by the AT vide order dated 15.02.2023.

DISPUTES BEFORE THE AT

15. The Sub-contractor filed its SOC [The Statement of Claim] raising the following claims against the Contractor: