JUDGMENT :

RAVI RANJAN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 assailing the order/judgment dated 06.01.2021 passed in Commercial Revocation Case No. 07 of 2019, by which, an arbitral award dated 23.02.2019 passed by the sole Arbitrator, has been set aside in entirety.

2. The brief facts of the case, required to be considered in this appeal, stand enumerated as under:

A notice inviting tender was issued by the East Central Railway through its General Manager for construction of seven bridges between Tori to Shivpuri (Km 23.00 to Km 44.00) in connection with construction of Tori Shivpur new BG Rail line project in Latehar district of Jharkhand State and the work was awarded to the respondent vide LOA No. ECR/CAO/Con/WT/S/165/13616 dated 03.06.2014. The value of the work was estimated to the tune of Rs. 82,80,54,283.78 and the work was to be completed within 24 months from the date of issuance of acceptance letter i.e. till 02.06.2016. A formal contract/agreement was entered into in between the parties on 31.10.2014. However, the work could not have been completed within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the East Central Railway vide its letter dated 11.07.2016 issued letter for termination of contract. Thus, the dispute arose between the parties and the claimant-respondent-appellant filed an application before this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute and this Court vide order dated 28.07.2017 passed in Arbitration Application No. 16 of 2017 has appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik, a Former Judge of this Court as Arbitrator and the dispute was referred for arbitration.

The award was passed in favour of the appellant holding the termination of the contract to be illegal and has passed the order allowing the claim to the extent of Rs. 28,45,90,777.56 under different heads as under:

The respondent East Central Railway, being aggrieved with the award, assailed the same by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) 1996.

The Court below, after hearing the application filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has considered the aforesaid award to be incorrect, as would appear from paragraphs-26, 27 and 28 of the order passed by the concerned Court. The finding recorded by the concerned court dealing with the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 as referred under paragraphs-26, 27 and 28 read as under:

“26. In the present case award to the extent of Rs. 8,59,08,325.00 has been made towards refund of encashed bank guarantee and security deposit vide item no 1 and further vide item no. 9 (I) award has been made towards interest on item no. 1. In this regar