IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act and the primary role of the arbitrator in interpreting contract terms.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral) - The present appeal has been filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the "Arbitration Act") read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging the Judgment dated 10th December, 2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in petition bearing Arb. A.(Comm) 74/2018. By way of the impugned Judgment, petition filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeking setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 15th January, 2017 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, was dismissed.

2. Facts stated in brief as canvassed before the learned Arbitrator, are as follows:

2.1. The respondent/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) floated a tender for allotment of a parking site for scooters and cars in the area DC at West Old Middle School. The appellant participated in the said tender by submitting his bid, which was accepted by the respondent. Pursuant thereto, a provisional offer letter dated 12th December, 2007 was issued by the respondent.

2.2. Subsequently, on 07th January, 2008, a formal agreement was executed between the parties, which stipulated monthly license fee of Rs.20,000/- + Rs.449/- per month as Tax Collected at Source ("TCS"). As per the said agreement, the contract between the parties was for a duration of 2 years with effect from the date of handing over the site to the licensee, but the contract shall be renewed after the expiry of 1 year with the enhancement of monthly license fee by 10%, subject to the satisfactory completion of previous year of contract.

2.3. The appellant took the possession of the parking site in question on 10th January, 2008 after inspecting the site in terms of the agreement. However, the appellant was not regular in making the payments since the beginning of the contract. The appellant had issued 6 cheques for payment of monthly license fee, which on presentation were dishonored. Thus, the respondent issued Show Cause Notice dated 05th November, 2008 to the appellant, upon receipt of which the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.1,85,500/-.

2.4. As the appellant continued to be irregular in payment of license fee, the total outstanding amount against the appellant towards license fee with the penal interest as per the terms and conditions of the agreement escalated to Rs.8,32,724/-. The respondent issued several demand notices to the appellant in this regard.

2.5. Appellant filed a suit bearing no. 1020/2009 in District Court, Rohini for mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondent herein for not adjusting the deposited amount by the appellant as security amount and license fee, and direction to not pass any adverse order against him regarding the parking site. The respondent Municipal Corporation filed its written statement in the said suit on 6th January, 2010 and took the objection that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties in respect of the parking site in question.

2.6. Thus, vide order dated 1st May, 2010, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the injunction application filed on behalf of the appellant in the said suit. Subsequently, the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 20th August, 2010 on the basis of default for non-prosecution as well as for non-appearance.

2.7. In the meanwhile, since the appellant failed to clear the outstanding amount, the respondent vide its letter dated 2nd June, 2010 cancelled the allotment of the appellant and declared it as "free parking" to facilitate the general public. The appellant was blacklisted by respondent vide notice dated 6th September, 2010 on account of non-payment of Rs.8,32,724/-, in pursuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 4th January, 2010 and 21st April, 2010 issued to the appellant. The security amount/earnest money deposited by the appellant was forfeited and his registration as parking contractor was cancelled.

2.8. Subsequent