The court upheld the arbitrator's ruling that the appellant was contractually required to provide the entire advertising area for the duration of the contract, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial intervention in arbitral awards.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Appellant by way of this Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) impugns Judgment dated 01.06.2022, whereby the Objections filed by the Appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the Interim Award III dated 29.10.2012 have been dismissed.

2. By way of Commercial Circular No. 36 of 2006 dated 01.05.2006, the Railway Board announced its intention to implement its scheme of awarding sole rights for commercial publicity on nominated divisions of the Railways to individual parties.

3. In pursuance thereof, a Notice Inviting Tender was issued by the Railways in December 2006, inviting tenders for commercial publicity in the Delhi Division of the Railways. Respondent - Pioneer Publicity Pvt. Ltd. (referred to as PPC by the learned Single Judge) emerged as the successful bidder. Respondent's bid was accepted by letter of acceptance dated 18.05.2007. Thereafter contract dated 20.09.2007 was executed awarding Respondent contract for commercial publicity with sole advertisement rights, with 213147 sq. ft. space, for Delhi Division. The letter of allotment dated 06.08.2007 was issued specifying the availability of some of the sites on specified dates.

4. The terms and conditions of letter of acceptance were accepted by the Respondent and as in pursuance thereto, licence fees, for the first six months of Rs.11,00,42,750/-, along with security deposit of Rs.2,28,85,500/- was paid to the Appellant. Sole advertisement rights were given to the Respondent for a period of 5 years from 20.09.2007 to 19.09.2012.

5. The total area awarded to the Respondent, i.e. 213147 sq. ft. was further divided into two categories based on its availability. Section (A) included 63 sites, comprising a total area of 167923 sq. ft, whereas Section (B) included 45 sites, with a total area of 45224 sq. ft.

6. The Tender Document stipulated that areas mentioned in Section (A) were to be made available on the dates corresponding to each tendered site specified therein and areas mentioned in Section (B) were made available immediately from the date of issuance of allotment letter. It was stipulated that "The ownership of the existing contracts will pass on to the contractor for display of commercial advertisement only after the expiry of the term of the contract. The contractor will have no locus standi on the advertisement displayed by existing contractor until the expiry of the contract. The list of the contract in the order of their expiry is enclosed along with the terms and conditions of the contract."

7. Disputes arose between the parties with regard to the total area to be provided to the contractor for advertisement purposes. The claim of the Respondent was that they were entitled to the entire area of 213147 sq. ft. for the entire period covered by the contract i.e. 20.09.2007 till 19.09.2012.

8. The contention of the Appellant is that area was to be allotted on as is where is basis and that the entire area was not to be made available from day one but was to be made available as and when the same was handed over by the existing contractors.

9. Respondent approached this court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal. Initially the Appellant disputed the existence of an Arbitration Agreement, however, later with the consent of the parties, by order dated 26.05.2009, the disputes were referred to the Arbitrator leading to the passing of the interim awards.

10.