An arbitral award can only be annulled on limited grounds of patent illegality or violation of public policy; mere errors in evidence appreciation do not suffice.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the `A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 30.06.2018 (hereafter the `impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.

2. The disputes between the parties relate to the amount claimed by the respondent as due and payable for the work executed pursuant to their agreement dated 11.11.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had overbilled and was overpaid up to the 12th RA Bill. The petitioner contends that impugned award, which accepts the amount payable to the respondent against the 14th RA Bill, is patently illegal as the 14th RA Bill raised by the respondent included consideration for construction work at the 14th Floor of the building, Tower `C' at Hamilton Heights, Sector 27, Faridabad, Haryana, which was admittedly not constructed.

Factual Context

3. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of developing residential group housing projects.

4. In 2013, the parties entered into negotiations for carrying out construction of the civil structure and finishing work of Tower D and finishing work of Tower C at Hamilton Heights, 37, Tilpat Palla Road, Faridabad 121003, Haryana (hereafter the `project'). The negotiations culminated in the petitioner issuing a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 26.06.2013 in favour of the respondent.

5. Thereafter, on 11.11.2013, the parties entered into an agreement (hereafter `the Agreement') in respect of the aforesaid project, whereby the respondent agreed to execute the subject works at a total value of Rs.19,41,12,925/-. The Agreement incorporated the LOI by reference.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioners made payments for the RA Bills up to the 12th RA Bill. However, disputes arose between the parties in respect of amounts charged under the 14th RA Bill dated 15.10.2015 for the work done during the period 01.08.2015 to 30.09.2015.

7. The petitioner sought to terminate the Agreement on 15.01.2016. On 18.01.2016, the petitioner sent a revised 14th RA Bill for the work done from 01.08.2015 to 15.01.2016.

8. On 02.03.2016, the respondent preferred a petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act, (being O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 69/2016) restraining the petitioner from terminating or foreclosing the Agreement and to direct the parties to undertake a joint measurement for finalization of the 14th RA Bill. By an order dated 01.04.2016, this Court appointed Mr Baldev Raj, Assistant Engineer (Civil), PWD, Government of NCT of Delhi, as the Local Commissioner for measuring the work carried out by the respondent, which was the subject matter of the 14th RA Bill. The Local Commissioner was also directed to supervise the removal of the material and equipment at the site by the respondent and, to further prepare an inventory of the material/equipment, the possession of which was taken by the respondent. The report was submitted by the Local Commissioner on 17.04.2016.

9. Since the disputes relating to the 14th RA Bill were not resolved, the parties referred the disputes to arbitration. The arbitral proceedings culminated in the impugned award.

10. The claims made by the respondent in its Statement of Claims filed before the Arbitral Tribunal, are summarized as under: