The court emphasized that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to setting aside, not modifying, reaffirming the principle established in prior rulings prohibiting alteration of arbitral findings.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J.:

FAO(OS) (COMM) 70/2021

1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 37(1)(C) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "Act") read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act filed by MBL Infrastructure Limited (MBL), challenging judgement dated 10.02.2021 passed in OMP (COMM) 507/2020, limited to the setting aside of the Award with respect to Claim No.1 (partially) and Claim No.7 (B) (C) and (D). The prayer clause of the appeal is reproduced here under:

"a) Allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2021 in OMP (Comm.) No.507 of 2020 titled "Telecommunication Consultant India Ltd. Vs. M/s MBL Infrastructures Ltd" in so far as the award with respect to Claim no. 1 (partially) and claim no. 7 (B) (C) & (D) have been partially set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

b) Grant cost of the present proceeding in favour of the appellant and against the respondent; and

c) Issue any other and further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. In brief facts, it is mentioned that Haryana State Roads & Bridge Development Corporation Ltd. (HSRDC) invited tenders for construction of certain flats at Hisar. The respondent, Telecommunication Company India Ltd. (TCIL) submitted the tender on 22.07.2008, which was accepted for a contract price of Rs.32,29,49,874/- vide letter dated 21.08.2008. A performance guarantee up to 5% of the contract was furnished by TCIL to the HSRDC as per the terms of the contract.

2.1. TCIL approached MBL to execute the project on `back-to-back basis' with TCIL getting margin of 2.5% of the value of the contract. Agreement dated 17.09.2008 was executed between MBL and TCIL. It was agreed that TCIL was to deduct its 2.5% share and release 97.50% of the payment received from HSRDC to MBL immediately. An amended Agreement was also executed on 31.10.2008 between the parties. The work was completed to the entire satisfaction of HSRDC on 31.11.2011.

2.2. On 01.02.2010, TCIL certified that the performance of MBL was found to be good and it was technically and financially sound. Again on 27.04.2013, TCIL certified the performance of MBL as `very good'. On 06.06.2013, MBL wrote to TCIL, submitting a Completion Certificate along with a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- issued by HSRDC to TCIL. On 19.07.2013, HSRDC issued a certificate that the work had been successfully completed on 30.11.2011 and the Defect Liability Period had also expired on 25.06.2013. On 22.07.2013, MBL requested TCIL to release the original Performance Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs.1,61,47,490/- and Invoice Payment Guarantee of Rs.60,00,000/-.

2.3. MBL also requested TCIL to release the long outstanding dues along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Instead of releasing the Performance Bank Guarantee, TCIL sought encashment of the same by approaching bankers of MBL. At that stage, MBL approached this Court and filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act being OMP No.782/2013. Status quo was ordered on 12.08.2013. In the meantime, TCIL encashed the bank guarantee and got a Demand Draft prepared in its favour. On 25.09.2013, TCIL was requested to deposit the entire amount of Demand Draft in this Court. MBL was forced to file another petition under Section 9 of the Act, being OMP No.797/2013, in respect of the Invoice Payment Bank Guarantee. TCIL wanted to get the said bank guarantee also encashed.

2.4. This Court vide order dated 13.08.2013 was pleased to direct TCIL not to encash the bank guarantee till the next date of hearing. On 14.09.2013, MBL again demanded release of payments and to discharge the Performance Bank Guarantee and refund of the Security Deposit. TCIL refused to