The main legal point established is the limited scope of interference in arbitral awards as per Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, and the interpretation of 'public policy of India' to include fundamental policy of Indian law, interest of India, justice, morality, and patently illegal awards.

1. This petition under Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (‘Act of 1997’ for short) is directed against an arbitral award dated 31st August, 2011, passed by Sh. A.S. Wazir, retired Chief Engineer, J&K PWD (sole arbitrator).

2. The background facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly put, are as under:

(a) Vide Agreement 6/OW dated 06th August, 2005 the construction work of road from Rajdhani to Dhar Saroola (L 7.00 Kms) Manjakote District Rajouri being package No. JK 12.06 PMGSY Phase-2, was allotted to respondent for a sum of Rs.164.00 lacs on the terms and conditions detailed in the contract agreement and the connected documents.

(b) Owing to the dispute with regard to the allegation of breach of contract having arisen between the petitioners and the respondent, the respondent invoked the arbitral clause contained in the contract agreement and requested for appointment of arbitrator. It appears that the petitioners did not agree to the request of the respondent which made the respondent to file a petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1997. A Bench of this Court in AA No.19/2008 appointed Sh. A.S. Wazir, Chief Engineer retired, as sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The appointment of Sh. A.S. Wazir was on the consensus of the parties as is apparent from the order dated 17th September, 2010 passed by this Court referring the matter to the above said arbitrator. The sole arbitrator entered the reference on 27th September, 2010. Both the parties appeared before the arbitrator and submitted their claims and counter claims. As is apparent from the impugned award, both the parties were given sufficient opportunity to lead their evidence in support of their claims and counter claims, as the case may be. After hearing the parties at length and considering all aspects, the sole arbitrator passed the award, impugned in this petition.

(c) The arbitrator allowed the claim Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 and rejected all the counter claims preferred by the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved of the award and have assailed the same primarily on the following grounds:-

(i) The award deals with the disputes which are not contemplated by the terms of the contract agreement and the award is, therefore, beyond the terms and conditions of the contract agreement.

(ii) The award suffers from error of jurisdiction, in that, the arbitrator delivered the award much after the expiry of four months period from the date he entered the reference.

(iii) The award impugned is against the public policy, in that, the arbitrator has taken into account the extraneous matters like the report of Geologist as to the nature of the soil, realignment of the road, measurement, title of land and its acquisition etc. which was beyond the scope of the contract and the terms of reference to the arbitrator.

3. The respondent has filed its objections. In the objections it is stated that in the absence of any ground as laid in Section 34 of the Act of 1997, the validity of the award cannot be challenged on mere errors of facts and law, if committed by the arbitrator. It is submitted that the award of the arbitrator is well reasoned and supported by material and evidence on record. The contention of the petitioners that the disputes decided by the learned Arbitrator and the amounts awarded were not within the scope of arbitration and the terms and conditions of the contract agreement is not supported by any material. It is, thus, submitted that the construction of contract agreement is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator having regard to the wide nature, scope and ambit of arbitration agreement and that being so, even if the interpretation and consideration of the contract agreement by the arbitrator gives rise to determination of question of law, the Court will not interfere with the award having been passed by the arbitrator who is a judge of the choice of the parties. With regard to th