Judicial intervention under the Arbitration Act is limited to reviewing arbitral awards for irrationality or unreasonableness, affirming the arbitrator's authority to award post-award interest and damages due to breaches without prior notice.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [A&C Act] read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, has been preferred challenging the Judgment dated 05.12.2018, [Impugned Judgment] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. No. 691/2012, which was filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Judgment as well as the Arbitral Award dated 22.03.2012, [Award] rendered by the learned Arbitrator, in respect of Claim No. 1 and Counter Claim No. 1.

2. At the outset, it needs to be stated that the learned Single Judge has affirmed the Award passed in favour of the Respondent, meaning thereby that this is an Appeal against two concurrent findings in favour of the Respondent.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant would challenge the Award on the following points:

(a). The learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that no interest was claimed in the counter-claim and, while referring to the prayers as sought therein, would urge that the Award of interest, having not been specifically sought for, ought not to have been granted by the learned Arbitrator; and that the learned Single Judge, in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act, has further exacerbated the position by failing to reverse the same.

(b). He would further contend that the learned Arbitrator has erred in allowing the counter-claim of the Respondent towards penalty. He would contend that in terms of Clause 17B of theGeneral Conditions of Contract, [GCC.], the maximum liquidated damages for a contract of a value of more than Rs. 2 lacs is 10% of the first Rs. 2 lacs and 5% of the balance amount. The Arbitrator, however, has awarded a penalty of 10% on the total contract value, thereby acting in ignorance of the contractual condition.

(c). It is his contention that the learned Arbitrator has awarded a total sum of Rs.5,38,015/- against what was the maximum allowable, which is a sum of Rs.2,39,007/-.

(d). He also states that the learned Arbitrator erred in permitting the earnest money to be forfeited.

(e). He would further contend that the Respondent had not issued any notice before claiming damages from the Appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant would specifically contend that the letters dated 17.04.2008, 21.09.2008, 23.10.2008 and 17.11.2008 were not considered and reading of these letters would make it evident that the necessary documents had not been provided by the Respondent, resulting in the Appellant being rendered unable to form its part of the Agreement.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Impugned Judgment as well as the Award suffers from no infirmity. She would further state that both the fora below have concurrently ruled in favour of the Respondent, and having regard to the narrow scope of interference permissible under Section 37 of the A&C Act, no ground for intervention is made out in the present matter.

ANALYSIS:

6. At the outset, we consider it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the impugned Judgement, which reads as follows:

“5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, however, I find no merit in the same. As noticed by theArbitrator, upon issuance of the Letter of Acceptance in favour of the petitioner and in terms of paragraph 5.2 (a) and (b) of the Special Tender Conditions and instructions to tenderers, it was the obligation of the petitioner to submit a Performance Guarantee within 15 days of the