Appellate courts under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, refrain from interfering with arbitral awards where the interpretation of contract clauses by the tribunal is plausible, even if an alternative view exists, unless the award is found to be perverse or illegal.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 37 (1) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the appellant, namely, Indian Oil Corporation (Bongaigaon Refinery), impugning the judgment and order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Court of the learned District Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon, in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.18/2016, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award dated 28.04.2016 was dismissed.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the respondent herein was found as the successful bidder in a tender floated by the appellant for the work of “Heater package for the DHDT (Diesel Hydro- Treater) project”, Dhaligaon, Assam. The Letter of Intent (LOI) in respect of the work order No.2007/PC-1234 was issued in favor of the respondent on 16.08.2007. The letter of acceptance (LOA) was issued on 29.07.2007. The lump sum contract value of the work to be carried out by the respondent was USD 17,80,000/- (USD Seventeen Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) plus Rs. 18,72,20,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore Seventy-Two Lakh Twenty Thousand Only). The commencement date of the said contract was 16.08.2007 and the date of completion was 13 months from the date of LOI i.e., on 15.09.2008. However, the work was completed by the respondent on 10.08.2011, after a delay of 1059 days in completing the contract work.

4. The respondent, after completion of the work, by letter dated 07.12.2011, sought extension of time for completion of work up to 10.08.2011. The appellant by its letter dated 20.08.2014, informed the respondent of the approval of competent authority regarding allowing extension of time up to 10.08.2011 to complete the work in question with imposition of Liquidated Damages (LD) amounting to 10% of the total contract value as per Clause 4.4.0.0 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). The LD amount was estimated at Rs. 2,59,57,700/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Nine Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred only).

5. It is pertinent to mention herein that the respondent submitted the final running account bill on 19.04.2012 for an amount of Rs. 23,27,946/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Six only).

6. Against the decision of the appellant regarding the deduction of the LD, the respondent initiated arbitration proceedings by filing statement of claims dated 10.09.2014 before the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) with following claims –

(i) Amount due under RA Bill No. 24 dated 19.04.2012 of Rs. 23,27,946/-;

(ii) Reimbursement of legal fees for opinion on procedure for post facto clearance and job work for imported material for Rs. 22,000/-;

(iii) Reimbursement of demurrage/cost incurred on imported dues for Rs. 22,80,109/-;

(iv) Additional cost incurred towards air freight on imported tubes;

(v) Fluctuation in exchange rate for Rs.