In international commercial arbitration, challenges to awards are limited to specific legal grounds, and mere dissatisfaction with arbitral decisions does not constitute public policy violations.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [hereinafter, "the Act"] is directed against an arbitral award dated 08.06.2018 by which a three member tribunal adjudicated disputes arising out of a contract dated 20.02.2007 for work of "Rehabilitation and upgrading of existing 2-lane road to 4 lane divided carriageway configuration from km 293.400 to km 336.000 Hyderabad-Bangalore section of NH-7 in the State of Andhra Pradesh on North-South Corridor, Contract Package No./ADB-II/C12" [hereinafter, "the Contract"].

2. The challenge of the petitioner -National Highways Authority of India [hereinafter, "NHAI"] is restricted to two claims which were awarded by the Tribunal against it:

a. Claim No.1: Payment of 150 mm thick embankment quantity under Bill of Quantities [hereinafter, "BOQ"] item No. 2.04.

b. Claim No. 3: Non-payment of BOQ item No. 5.15 for providing and laying M-15 grade concrete in pipe bedding.

3. Ms. Nivedita Nair, learned counsel for the NHAI, submits that the award on both these claims is contrary to the terms of the Contract, as the activities for which the award has been made were already covered under other items of the BOQ.

4. As far as claim No. 1 is concerned, Ms. Nair contends that, since the respondent has already been paid for "clearing and grubbing" under BOQ item No. 1.01, the grant of the claim for embankment under BOQ item No. 2.04 was not permissible. According to NHAI, "clearing and grubbing" activity includes backfilling, and grant of both items of the BOQ amounts to double recovery on the part of the respondent.

5. As far as claim No. 3 is concerned, the principal submission of Ms. Nair is that no amount was liable to be awarded under BOQ item No. 5.15 as the work to be done was covered under BOQ item No. 5.14. She draws my attention to two items of the BOQ [at page 424 of the petitioner's documents] which are listed as follows:

6. According to Ms. Nair, by an amendment to the technical specifications, the following provision was incorporated in Clause 2911 of the amended technical specifications:

7. Ms. Nair submits that the award of the respondent's claim under BOQ item No. 5.15 separately by the arbitral tribunal is directly in the teeth of Clause 2911 of the amended technical specifications which provides that the contract unit rate of the pipes shall inter alia, include the cement concrete bedding below the pipe.

8. Dr. Amit George, learned counsel for the respondent, at the very outset, submits that the aforesaid grounds of challenge are not available in the present case as the respondent is an entity incorporated in Taiwan, and the award under challenge is