JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. K.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Government counsel, appearing for respondent no. 3.

2. This appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2019, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 5/2018, thereby dismissing the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award dated 11.11.2017, passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three learned Members.

3. In this appeal, parties are referred as per their nomenclature in the memo of appeal.

Brief facts leading to dispute between the respondent no. 1 and proforma respondent no. 2:

4. Bereft of details, the factual matrix leading to this appeal, is that the State of Assam was to hold National Games of India. Accordingly, bids were invited for the “Construction of various sport complexes for National Games-2005, Guwahati, Assam Package-I: Sonapur Sports Complex at Tepesia (Sonapur), Hockey Stadium at Bhetapara (Guwahati), New Indoor Stadium at R.G. Baruah Sports Complex and Package-II: Construction of Sarusajai Sports Complex (Main Athletic Stadium, Main Indoor Stadium and Aquatic Complex) and Shooting Range at Kahilipara.” In the bidding process, Larsen and Toubro Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the respondent no. 1) had participated. The National Games Secretariat (hereinafter referred to as the proforma respondent no. 2), had issued letter of acceptance dated 13.02.2004 to the respondent no. 1 for construction work for combined package-I and II for National Games, 2005 at Guwahati on item rate basis for a value of Rs. 139,45,66,938/- (Rupees one hundred thirty nine crore forty five lakh sixty six thousand nine hundred thirty eight only). Pursuant to necessary formalities of providing performance security, etc. and agreement dated 10.04.2004 was made between the proforma respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 1.

5. It may be mentioned that in the said agreement dated 10.04.2004, the “National Games Secretariat (NGS), Assam” is referred to as “the employer” and the respondent no. 1 is referred to as “the contractor.”

6. The respondent no. 1 had completed the contract works and handed over the same to the proforma respondent no. 2 on 30.01.2007. Thus, the defect liability period of the said works expired on 30.01.2008. Out of the contract price a sum of Rs. 139,45,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thirty nine crore forty five lakh only) was paid to the respondent no. 1. It may be stated that STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata was appointed as the Engineer-in-Charge in respect of the said contract works.

7. The respondent no. 1 projects that it was directed by the Engineer-in-Charge to do some additional works, which was done. The said additional works entailed additional cost and accordingly, the respondent no. 1 had submitted a final bill for Rs. 1,49,83,65,104/- (Rupees One hundred forty nine crore eighty three lakh and sixty five thousand one hundred four only). Thus, by deducting the payment of Rs. 1,39,45,00,000/- received by the respondent no. 1 upto 24th RA bill, the Engineer-in-Charge recommended payment of balance amount of Rs. 10,38,65,104/- (Rupees ten crore thirty eight lakh sixty five thousand one hundred four only) due to the respondent no. 1 after necessary verification and observation of required formalities. It is projected that vide letter dated 05.03.2007, the Secretary General of the proforma respondent no. 2 had informed the respondent no. 1 that the revised contract value of Rs. 150.05 crore (approx.) against