The judgment clarified the limited scope of arbitration interference under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing adherence to procedural integrity and evidence standards in awards.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19th February 2020 passed in Original Suit No.1 of 2020 by the learned District Judge-XIV-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court at Dhanbad whereby the learned Commercial Court has refused to interfere with the Award dated 22nd July 2017 passed in Arbitration Case No.12 of 2015 by the learned Arbitrator and has rejected the application filed under section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996).

2. The learned Arbitrator entered into reference pursuant to the order dated 31st March 2016 passed by this Court in Arbitration Application No.12 of 2015 filed under section 11(6) of the Act of 1996.

3. The dispute arises out of a contract dated 22nd December 2010 entered into between the parties for widening two lanes and improvement in KM 0.0090 to KM 21.000 and KM 62.650 to KM 73.000 of National Highways-100 (Chatra-Hazaribagh-Bagodar Road) within the State of Jharkhand. The contract was sought to be executed through the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand which was an agency appointed on behalf of the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India. The value of the work as per the contract was Rs. 25,46,08,807.81.

4. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) successfully participated in the bid process; a letter of acceptance was issued to the claimant on 29th November 2010; Agreement No.2 SBD of 2010-11 was executed on 22nd December 2010 after the deposit of Rs.12,36,400/- as performance guarantee; the time period for completion of work was 24 months.

5. The contract was terminated on 08th October 2012, prior to the expiry of the scheduled time for completion of work. However, the termination was stayed on 04th December 2012 and the stay on termination was finally revoked on 19th March 2013. The work was partly completed only to the extent of 20% (as per the appellants) and to the extent of 25 % (as per the claimant). Disputes arose between the parties and learned Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court vide order dated 31st March 2016.

6. It was the case of the claimant that the claimant mobilized his men and machinery for the execution of the work as per the terms and conditions of the contract and proceeded to execute the contract. However, its Running Account Bills (in short, “RA Bills”) were withheld for a considerable period of time in the absence of prior sanction from the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India. After a lapse of more than five months, the appellants took steps for the release of “RA Bills” which crippled the claimant and caused hindrance in the execution of the work. The claimant continued to execute the work but its “RA Bills” remained withheld. It was also the case of the claimant that several portions of the road over which the work was to be executed were encroached upon by the local people and at several places electrical poles were standing which obstructed the progress of the work. In spite of the repeated requests, the claimant was not handed over the site free from encumbrance.

7. The claim was on account of 7th and 8th “RA Bills” amounting to Rs. 2,07,37,577/-; refund of amount towards unused road construction materials amounting to Rs. 1,30,00,000