The judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is restricted to issues of patent illegality, ensuring that arbitrator's findings are not disturbed unless they fundamentally breach public policy or natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Petition under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Airports Authority of India, for setting aside the Award dated 26.03.2019 whereby a total sum of Rs. 2,57,86,532/- along with interest @ 10% w.e.f. 04.09.2017 till the date of the Award and further 10% from 27.03.2019 up to the date of actual payment along with Rs. 7,00,000/- as costs, has been awarded to the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner has also sought setting aside of the Order dated 07.05.2019 on the Application under Section 33 (1) and (1)(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whereby certain corrections have been carried out in the Award, by the learned Arbitrator.

3. Facts in brief, are that the Petitioner/Airports Authority of India (AAI) floated a tender for the construction of New Control Tower-cum- Technical work, at Mangalore. As per the NIT, the last date for submission of the bid was 12.12.2011 and the final date scheduled for opening of the financial bid was 20.12.2011. The Respondent made a bid, which was accepted vide Letter dated 12.04.2012 for the work at the cost of Rs.18,90,88,243/-.

4. As per the terms of the Letter of Acceptance, the work was to be completed within 13 months reckoned from the 10th day of issuance of the Letter dated 12.04.2012, i.e., from 22.04.2012, and the stipulated date of completion was 31.05.2013. An Agreement dated 19.04.2012 was entered into between the parties.

5. During the currency of the contract, the Respondent on various occasions, sought an extension of time for completion of work, and the Petitioner gave a provisional extension of time. The Petitioner has asserted that the work could not be completed in time and there was a delay of 477 days in the completion of the work.

6. After the work was completed, the Competent Authority, i.e., the Member (Planning) of the Petitioner, approved that the delay of 142 days which was found to be justified, while the balance of 335 days was found to be unjustified, and an amount of Rs. 58,55,625/- was imposed upon the Respondent as liquidated damages.

7. The Respondent invoked Clause 25 of the Agreement and requested the appointment of a Dispute Resolution Committee ("DRC") for the determination of the claims of the Respondent. Various meetings were held, after which the DRC submitted its Report vide Letter dated 28.08.2017. The Respondent did not accept the recommendations of the DRC and invoked Arbitration vide Letter dated 04.09.2017.

8. The learned Arbitrator was appointed. The Respondent submitted the Claims, to which a Reply was given by the learned Arbitrator. After the completion of pleadings and arguments, the learned Arbitrator concluded the proceedings on 05.06.2018. However, vide e-mail dated 11.02.2019, the learned Arbitrator observed that certain records were required for checking Claim Nos. 3 and 5 and requested that the same be forwarded to him. He further engaged an Engineer, Sh. Ram Niwas Rohilla, to check the same and submit the Report.

9. The Impugned Award was passed on 26.03.2019 and was received by the Petitioner by hand, on the same day.

10. The Petitioner filed an Application under Section 33 (1)(A) and 33(1)(B) of the Arbitration and Concilia