Judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to assessing non-compliance with public policy or blatant errors; arbitral awards will not be disturbed unless they are perverse or irrational.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] challenging theArbitral Award dated 26.02.2010 [Impugned Award] rendered by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the matter titled "M/s TDI International India Ltd. vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.” In addition to assailing the Impugned Award, the Petitioner has, in the present Petition, also sought multiple reliefs in respect of various Claims.

2. It is relevant to note that, during the course of arguments before this Court, the Petitioner confined its challenge primarily to four claims, namely, Claim Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6, as decided by the learned Arbitrator.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The Petitioner (Claimant in the Arbitral Proceedings) is a company engaged in the business of outdoor, indoor and transit advertising.

4. The Respondent herein (Respondent in the Arbitral Proceedings), invited tenders vide Tender document dated 19.01.2004 for Advertising Rights inside stations and circulating areas located between Kanahiya Nagar - Rithala Section (eight stations), for a period of five (05) years.

5. The Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder in the tender, and a Letter of Acceptance dated 19.02.2004 [LoA] was issued in its favour.

6. Thereafter, several correspondences took place, and the Respondent vide letter dated 01.04.2004 informed the Petitioner that the latest date of submitting the plans for approval will be 12.04.2004, and in addition, acceding to the Petitioners’ request, provided four weeks from the date of approval, i.e., 06.05.2005, for fabrication, etc. and mentioned that no further extension will be provided.

7. Pursuant thereto, a formal License Agreement dated 01.06.2004 [License Agreement] was executed between the parties, wherein Clause 3 of the Agreement stipulated that the licence would commence from the date of signing the agreement and continue for five years from the date of handing over of possession, while Clause 4 of the License Agreement specifically dealt with the date of start of the licence with reference to approval of plans or issuance of take-over notice, whichever was earlier.

8. However, vide letter dated 03.06.2004, which was signed by both the parties, advertising sites were handed over to the Petitioner while mentioning that the lease out will be activated from 01.06.2004, and the Respondents were obliged to provide the electricity supply.

9. Thereafter, between July 2004 and March 2005, several letters were exchanged between the parties regarding the electricity supply for the advertising panels to start the commercial exploitation of the advertising sites.

10. On 18.03.2005, the electrical layout plans were approved. The Petitioner was permitted to commence commercial exploitation on 07.04.2005, pursuant whereto the Petitioner commenced operations and sought recognition of the said date as the l