The court will not disturb an arbitral award unless it is shown to be based on a clear lack of evidence or procedural irregularity, reaffirming the finality of arbitration in dispute resolution.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)

I.A. 7491/2022

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

I.A. 7490/2022

3. This is an application seeking restoration of the above-captioned petition, which was dismissed in default on 23.08.2021. This Court had noted that the petitioner had not appeared on the previous hearing as well (that is, hearing held on 28.07.2021).

4. The present petition was first listed on 13.01.2015. The parties had taken an inordinately long period to complete the pleadings. The parties have not filed their submissions. It is seen that the petitioner had also not been diligently pursuing the present petition.

5. Accordingly, on 21.03.2016, the petition was dismissed in default. After lapse of more than one and a half years, the petitioner once against sought restoration of the above-captioned petition, which was restored by an order dated 31.01.2018.

6. On 23.08.2021, the petition was dismissed in default for the second time.

7. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he had not noted down the next date of hearing in his diary and therefore, the listing of the matter had escaped his attention, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition.

8. The petition is restored to the position as existing on 23.08.2021.

O.M.P. (COMM) 357/2020

9. 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 17.04.2014 (hereafter `the impugned award').

10. The impugned award was rendered in context of the disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with an agreement dated 24.01.2009 (hereafter the `Agreement').

11. The petitioner is the owner of an industrial premises at Bajpur District, Udhamsingh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The parties had entered into the Agreement for carrying out construction of the factory building at the said industrial premises for a total consideration of Rs.2,57,00,000/-.

12. The Arbitral Tribunal had found that after the parties had entered into the Agreement, the respondent had commenced the work of excavation of the foundation for constructing the factory premises, however, the petitioner had thereafter, issued instructions for stopping the work and to defer further construction for a period of two to three months. Admittedly, the work could not be resumed because the petitioner had not secured the necessary sanctions from the competent authority for carrying out the said construction. The respondent continued to await further instructions from the petitioner, however, the same were not forthcoming.

13. In view of the above, the respondent served a legal notice dated 02.08.2011 raising the claims, as set out in the following tabular statement:

14. The Director of the respondent company filed evidence by way of an affidavit and was also cross-examined. After evaluation of the evidence available on record, the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the respondent was entitled for a sum of Rs.67,619/- on account of the works executed. The