JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for brevity as Arbitration Act, 1996) against the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Tinsukia in Misc(J) Case No. 5/2020.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent was found successful in tender process initiated by the appellant/Railway for execution of works “Provision of Separator made of ‘W’ Steel Section Mounted on Steel Channel Post in connection with the work at Dibrugarh Town-New Tinsukia to protect track mounting (11kms).” The letter of acceptance was issued to the respondent in respect of the work on 22.02.2013. The original period of completion of the contract work was 9(nine) months and the original contract value was Rs.34,34,980.75/-but the final value of work was increased by 21.99% i.e. Rs.4,18,48,959.75/-.

4. The parties singed the formal contract agreement and the contract is to be governed by the provisions of General Condition of Contract, 1988(GCC) and Standard Specification of Indian Railway Engineering Department, 2010. The Clause 3.15 of the agreement provides for payment of price variation(PVC). Although the respondent was required to complete the work by 21.11.2013, however, they could not and therefore, the respondent requested the Railway for granting extension of time for completion of work and ultimately time was extended from time to time and finally the respondent had completed the work on 18.07.2014. After completion of the work, the respondent signed a no claim certificate while claiming refund of security deposit and earnest money. Thereafter, only the respondent vide letter dated 21.07.2015 claimed enhanced price variation. The Railway denied the price variation on the ground that the extension was granted on the condition ‘without Liquidated Damage(LD) and without allowing Payment of Price Variation(PVC)’ and that apart the respondent has already singed no claim certificate and as such, the respondent could not make any claim.

5. Subsequently, after exchange of pleadings and on consideration of materials on record, the learned Sole Arbitrator vide impugned award dated 25.05.2019 allowed the price variation (PVC) to the tune of Rs.26,62,378/-with interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of completion of the work along with the cost.

6. The appellant has challenged the said order dated 25.05.2019 before the court of learned District Judge, Tinsukia under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1996 by way of filing Misc.(Arbitration) Case No. 04/2020 for setting aside the award on the ground that the extension was granted to the respondent by the competent authority of railway as per Clause 17B of GCC without LD and without PVC and as such, the respondent is not entitled for price variation. Along with Misc(Arbitration) Case No.04/2020, another petition was also filed by a separate application for condonation of delay being Misc(J) Case No. 05/2020.

7. It is also stated in the petition that as per Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 the petitioner, under Section 34 for setting aside the award dated 25.05.2019 could be filed within 3(three) months with further extension of time by days thereafter from the date of receipt of arbitral award. The appellant i.e. the Divisional Railway Manager, Tinsukia, who is the competent authority to take decision in the matter, received the award only on 19.12.2019. Therefore, the petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1996 was accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay being Misc.(J) Case No. 05/2020. The condonation petition was taken up for hearing by the learned District Judge on 20.01.2022. After hearing the parties, vide impugned order dated 20.01.2022, the learned District Jude, Tinsukia passed the order by stating that the provision u