The arbitral tribunal's awards must be founded on evidence; awards lacking sufficient support can be overturned on appeal.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter `the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 20.01.2020 (hereinafter the `impugned award') passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three Arbitrators, Mr. O.P. Gaddhyan, Mr. Vipan Kumar and Justice (Retd.) Reva Khetrapal as the presiding arbitrator. Whilst Mr. O.P. Gaddhyan and Justice (Retd.) Reva Khetrapal delivered the impugned award by majority, Mr. Vipan Kumar entered a dissenting opinion on 23.01.2020.

2. The impugned award has been rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to an agreement dated 17.09.2008, as amended by an agreement dated 31.10.2008.

3. By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal has partly accepted the claims preferred by the respondent. The Arbitral Tribunal has accepted that the total amount payable to the respondent in respect of its claim would be Rs.5,91,36,814. The Tribunal further allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as per normal banking norms on the said amount calculated from 24.12.2013 (i.e. the date of filing of Statement of Claim) till the date of making and publishing the award. The Tribunal further directed that the said payment be made within a period of 30 days failing which a further interest of 12% per annum is to be applicable from the date of the Award till the date of payment. The Arbitral Tribunal also awarded cost quantified at Rs.58,48,927/- along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

4. The petitioner (hereinafter `TCIL') assails the impugned award to the extent as noted hereafter, as being patently illegal and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian Law.

5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts that are necessary to address the controversy are as under:

6. Haryana State Roads & Bridge Development Corporation Ltd. (hereafter `HSRDC') invited tenders for "Construction of 144 nos. Type V and 24 nos. Type VI houses with parking in basement (C+7 Storey) in the campus of Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Project at Khedar in Hissar District" (hereinafter `the project').

7. The petitioner (TCIL) submitted its tender for executing the project works on 22.07.2008. TCIL's bid of Rs.32,29,49,824/- was accepted by HSRDC and the contract for implementation of the project was awarded to TCIL by a letter dated 21.08.2008.

8. In the aforesaid letter of acceptance, TCIL was directed to furnish a Performance Security as per Clause 34 of Section I-Instructions to Bidders, for an amount equivalent to 5% of the contract price i.e. Rs.1,61,47,491/-, within 21 days of the receipt of the letter dated 21.08.2008. The same was duly furnished by TCIL.

9. Thereafter, TCIL approached the respondent (hereinafter MBL) to execute the said project as a sub-contractor and on 18.08.2008, MBL agreed to the terms and conditions. It was agreed that the contract would be executed on back to back basis with TCIL retaining a margin of 2.5% and disbursing the balance 97.5% to MBL. In addition, TCIL agreed to depute three engineers for co-ordination between MBL, TCIL and HSRDC and MBL agreed to bear the cost of the aforesaid at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month for each engineer.

10. Thereafter, on 17.09.2008, an agreement was entered into between TCIL and MBL (hereinafter `the Agreement'). MBL agreed to complete the project within a period of eighteen months. TCIL agreed to release the payments received from HSRDC, after deducting 2.5% margin, immediately on receiving the same.

11. In terms of the Agreement dated 1