The court confirmed that the scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited, emphasizing the binding nature of arbitration agreements.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

CM.APPL No.24765/2022 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

FAO No.147/2022 & CM. APPL. No.24766/2022 (Interim Stay)

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the `Arbitration Act') on behalf of the appellant assailing the Award dated 02.11.2015 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.132/2013 as well as the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned ADJ-02, West, Delhi in Arbitration No. 60863/16. The appellant also seeks direction to the respondent for fresh adjudication of claims by another Arbitrator.

4. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned ADJ, are as follows:

"2. Petitioner is approved contractor of the respondents as he is listed as such in appropriate class. The work pertaining to development of main land i.e. construction of C/o 60 mtr. & 45 m.MP.P Roads at Dwarka Phase-II, Sector 23(b 24, 25 & 26), Construction of Boundary Wall along Trunk Drain No. 2 was awarded to him. The tender is said to be an "Item rate tender" having an estimated cost of Rs.35,12,293/- but the petitioner had taken it at 8% discount and hence, the tender costs was Rs.32,29,035/-. The work was to start on 23.07.2011 and was to be completed in three months i.e, on 22.10.2011. But the site was provided to the petitioner and hence, the actual date of completion was 16.01.2012. The respondents prepared a final bill of only Rs.34,15,741/- but he was claiming more amount and hence an arbitrator was appointed who ruled against him vide award dated 02.12.2015."

5. Vide the impugned order, the learned ADJ has dismissed the objections filed by the appellant against the impugned Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was awarded a contract by the respondent, however, the work assigned could not be completed in time due to delay attributable to the respondent itself. He further submitted that the appellant had accepted the First Bill as full and final settlement of dues, but the acceptance was under coercion since the respondent declined to make any payment at all if the said Bill was not accepted as such. It was also submitted that no copy of the aforesaid Bill was provided to the appellant, as a result whereof, the appellant had no opportunity of seeing the quantities recorded and the rates applied. Lastly, learned counsel argued that the impugned order is cryptic and came to be passed in a mechanical manner.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and supported the impugned order and Award. It was submitted that no force or coercion was exercised on the appellant for acceptance of the First and Final Bill as settlement of all dues. It was further submitted that despite acceptance of the aforesaid Bill and encashing the relevant cheque, the appellant is now claiming three times the amount agreed upon in the original contract. Learned counsel also submitted that the time period for completion of the work was extended at request of the appellant; in view of the undertaking given by the appellant on the concerned application, that no claim would be made on the basis of delay, as well as the terms of the contract, the appellant is not entitled to any additional/enhanced amount.

8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

9. In the present case, the appellant was contracted by the respondent for construction of `Bounda