The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as well as the applicability of relevant case law to determine the validity of the impugned award.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to set aside the arbitration award dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator in the matter of Arbitration between KAP (India) Projects & Construction Pvt. Ltd., and the Waterbase Ltd., and in the matter of agreement dated 19.02.1991 and 18.06.1991.)

1. Captioned 'Original Petition' ('OP' for the sake of brevity) is purportedly an application under Section 33 of 'The Arbitration Act, 1940' ('1940 Act' for the sake of brevity), assailing an 'arbitral award dated 16.05.2018' ('impugned award' for the sake of convenience and brevity) made by an 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for the sake of brevity) constituted by a sole arbitrator, who is a former Hon'ble Judge of this Court.

2. Mr.S.A.Rajan, learned counsel for petitioner was before me in this web hearing on a video conferencing platform.

3. Learned counsel, submitted that the impugned award is being sought to be dislodged and is being assailed on the following grounds:

(a) Under Section 14(2) of the 1940 Act, the impugned award, ought to have been filed in Court and the Court should have thereupon given notice to the parties about the filing of the impugned award, but this has been breached.

(b) Vide Serial No.3 of Schedule 1 of 1940 Act, AT ought to have made the impugned award within four months from the date of entering appearance, but this has not happened and there has been no enlargement of time under Section 28 of 1940 Act.

(c) Notice of hearing was issued by AT, this is notice dated 11.02.2015 fixing a preliminary hearing on 19.02.2015, but the impugned award ultimately came to be made only on 16.05.2018.

4. Learned counsel in his usual fairness submitted that the above are the limited points on which the impugned award is being assailed.

5. Before dealing with the three points raised by learned counsel for petitioner, it may be necessary to set out short facts shorn of elaboration and the trajectory the matter has taken in reaching this Court.

6. The genesis of matter on hand is an agreement dated 19.02.1991 between the petitioner and respondent; petitioner in the captioned OP shall be referred to as 'Waterbase' and the respondent in captioned OP shall be referred to as 'KAP' for the sake of convenience and clarity; KAP was claimant before AT and Waterbase was sole respondent before AT; the 19.02.1991 agreement' shall be referred to as 'said contract' for the sake of brevity; it is seen from the case file placed before this Court that the said contract is for civil construction particularly a bridge; complaining that there was a delay, the arbitration clause in the said contract was triggered by KAP and claims were made; Waterbase, as respondent, made counter claims; originally, an ex-parte award came to be passed, that was set aside by this Court, the matter was carried by way of an intra court appeal vide OSA being OSA No.344 of 2009; that by order dated 22.12.2014 in OSA, Hon'ble Division Bench, by consent of the parties appointed a former Hon'ble Judge of this Court, who constituted the AT; that the AT entered upon reference; before AT, there was both oral evidence and documentary evidence. One witness each was examined on the side of KAP and Waterbase as claimant and respondent respectively; on the side of KAP as claimant, as many as 447 documents were marked i.e., Ex.C1 to Ex.C447 and on the side of Waterbase as respondent as many as 218 documents i.e., Ex.R1 to Ex.R218 were marked; after detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, impugned award was made by AT holding inter-alia that KAP is entitled to Rs.69.76 Lakhs with interest; assailing this impugned award, captioned OP has been filed purportedly under Section 33 of 1940 Act and Waterbase as protagonist of captioned OP raised three points for assailing the impugned award, which have been captured in the submissions made by learned counsel supra.

7. For the sake of convenience and clarity, this Court deems it