Section 34 limits court interference with arbitral awards to cases of perversity or public policy violation; reasoned awards based on contract and evidence must be upheld to respect finality.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner herein has assailed the award dated 31.12.2022, passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in favour of the claimant, in terms whereof, the following reliefs have been granted to the claimant:-

“Metering
[40] As per Article 7.1 of the PPA Ex.CW1/3, Main Meter and Check Meter, one set is to be installed by Company and the Board and as per Article 7.5, such meters are to be calibrated and tested once during every year. Thus expenditure for one set of meter is to be borne by the Board so also calibration and testing. The averments made in the claim qua expenditure incurred by the claimant and cost that is to be met by the Board has not been disputed by the Board. Thus a sum of Rs. 2,94,720/-.
Civil Work
[41] The Board has claimed expenditure for civil work and it is admitted by the RW1 Amit Patial that entire expenditure has been charged to the claimant. It is not disclosed in the documents furnished by the Board what civil works relating to sub station/switchyard were executed. It is simply saying that it spent money on civil works. No doubt approach road is required to be maintained. There is only stretch of 3 Kms which is connected with the switchyard. The total length is 12 Kms and thus it comes to 1/4th out of share of the company by any conservative estimate under this head. Thus chargeable amount to the claimant company is as under:-

R & M of Upkeep of Rest House, residential and non residential building, street lighting
[42] The Board is charging expenditure for maintenance and upkeep of residential and non residential building, rest house, street lighting and entire expenditure is being charged to the sub station as per statement of RW 1 Amit Patial. The 12 persons are deployed at the sub station and they are also residing in the accommodation provided by the Board. The maintenance of their residences and providing electricity is also a charge. Thus, 50% of the cost out of the share of the company under this head is reasonable. Thus year wise expenditure chargeable to the claimant company is as under:-

[43] Thus total refund due to the claimant company is as under-

[One crore thirty one lacs eighty six thousand fifty seventy five only]
Issue No.2
[44] The Board withheld the actual expenditure that was incurred and recoverable from the claimant company despite there being express agreement in terms of clause 6.5 of O & M Agreement and continue to retain the amount with it. The cause of action arose to the claimant when it sent communication dt 28/12/2020. In terms of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the claimant is entitled to interest on Rs. 1,31,86,075/-@ 11% p.a. from 28/12/2020 till 31/12/2022 which works out to Rs.29,16,832/- The claimant is also entitled to further interest on Rs.1,61,02,907/- @11% p.a. w.e.f. 1.1.2023 till payment.
Issue No.3
[45] It is claimed by the respondent that claim so preferred is time barred as such not arbitrable.
[46] It is not disputed that as per clause 6.3 of the O & M Agreement Ex.CW1/2, the Board is required to intimate the tentative amount required to be deposited for normal operation and maintenance of the Interconnection Facility for ensuing year and such estimates were being sent to the claimant. In terms of clause 6.5, the Board was required to intimate actual exp