The Court's power while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is limited, and it cannot undertake an independent assessment on the merits of the Award.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act 1940 r/w the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996, against the award passed by the 2nd respondent dated 27-12-2002 in PAP/7069/3/E8 to pay a sum of Rs.15,29,200/- with interest in favour of the 1st respondent and confirmed by the Learned District Judge Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in A.R.O.P.No.21 of 2005 dated 24-03-2007 and to set aside the same and direct the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.6,48,015/- to the Appellant with interest at 18% p.a. from the certified date of completion i.e. 23-10-1997 till the date of payment to the appellant herein as the claim in the Arbitration Proceedings.)

The Union of India which is the respondent before the Arbitrator is the appellant before this court. They seek to challenge the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam in A.R.O.P.No.21 of 2005.

2. The facts briefly set out in the petition filed under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996( hereinafter called the “Act“) are as follows:-

3. The appellant would contend that they had entered into a contract with the first respondent on 10.10.1994 for the construction of accommodation for the guest room and building in the existing Officers Mess (DSSC) and connected external services at Wellington. As per the agreement, the work was to commence on 24.10.1994 and the same was to be completed by 23.04.1996. The IAFW 2249. (General conditions of contracts) forms part of the contract dated 10.10 1994.

4. It is the case of the appellant that during the currency of the contract, Deviation orders (DOs) were issued by them to the respondent. Thereafter, since the respondent did not come forward to submit their final bill of the contract, the appellant had prepared a final bill for the contract. Meanwhile, disputes arose between the appellant and the first respondent with regard to the period of completion, DOs Unreturned surplus material, interest and due to the various breaches of the contract.

5. The parties had referred the dispute to the Arbitrator appointed as per the terms of the agreement dated 10.10.1994. Originally one P.Tulasiram was appointed as the Arbitrator who resigned on 26.12.2001, thereafter the 2nd respondent was appointed as an Arbitrator in his place by orders of the Engineer in Chief, Army Headquarter (Army HQ), New Delhi, dated 20.02.2002. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties and perusing the records passed an award dated 27.12.2002, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.15,29,200/- together, with interest from out of the total claim of Rs.2,47,19,367/- to the 1st respondent and also awarded a sum of Rs.81,225/- in favour of the appellant as against their original claim of Rs.5,86,000/-. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant had filed the impugned petition. Their grievance was that the Arbitrator had not referred to the evidence given by the appellant in the Arbitral Proceedings and in fact, the same has been concealed. They had further stated that the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction and decided beyond the scope of the reference.

6. It is the grievance of the appellant that the Arbitrator has totally overlooked the fact that the first respondent had not handed over the building within the stipulated time and had been taking extensions. The extensions have been granted only at the request of the 1st respondent and for five times it was with a Nil financial obligation. In all, 83 DOs were issued to the 1st respondent. The first respondent had accepted the deviations and signed it without any protest up to deviation number 69. Thereafter, for DOs Nos.70 to 83, they had signed the same under protest with remarks that the “letter will follow“ on 23.10.1998. However, no letter has been received from the 1st respondent till the finalization of the final bill dated 01.10.1998. The appellant would contend that the Arbitrator has