The court upheld the arbitral award, emphasizing that the view taken by the arbitral tribunal did not demonstrate patent illegality or shock the conscience of the court, and therefore, the petition was dismissed.

ORDER :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Award passed on 31.10.13 by the second respondent and render justice.)

Captioned 'Original Petition' ('OP' for the sake of brevity) was presented in this Court more than half a decade ago, on 24.01.2014 to be precise.

2. Captioned OP is an application under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, assailing an 'arbitral award dated 31.10.2013' (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity and convenience) made by an 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for the sake of brevity) constituted by a sole Arbitrator, who is a Chartered Engineer.

3. In this web-hearing, on a videoconferencing platform i.e., virtual Court, Ms.V.Rani, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for sole petitioner and Ms.Hema Srinivasan, learned counsel on record for contesting first respondent are before me.

4. Aforementioned both learned counsel consented for captioned OP being taken up for final disposal in this web hearing on a video conferencing platform i.e., Virtual Court. Therefore, captioned OP was taken up for final disposal and heard out.

5. Before I plunge into the crux and gravamen of the core challenge qua impugned award in the captioned OP, there are two peripheral aspects of the matter which need to be set out. The first peripheral aspect is, captioned OP has been presented in this Court on 24.01.2014 (as noted supra) and therefore, the same shall be governed by pre 23.10.2015 regime of A and C Act or in other words, it will be governed by A and C Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 3 of 2016, which kicked in with retrospective effect on and from 23.10.2015. The second peripheral aspect is, the sole Arbitrator, who is a chartered Engineer, who constituted the AT, has been arrayed as Respondent No.2 in the captioned OP. Owing to the nature of the submissions made today, this Court is of the considered view that the sole Arbitrator, who constituted the AT, need not be in the array of parties. I, therefore, follow the procedure adopted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Heavy Equipments case [Zonal General Manager, Ircon International Limited Vs. Vinay Heavy Equipments reported in (2015) 13 SCC 680] and delete Respondent No.2 from the array of parties in captioned OP (to be noted, deletion procedure is captured in order /record of proceedings of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 SCC OnLine SC 4). Therefore, the contractor, who has been described as contesting first respondent supra, now the lone respondent in captioned OP.

6. This Court having set out two peripheral aspects, now deems it appropriate to give short facts shorn of elaboration. To be noted, short facts or in other words factual matrix in a nutshell containing essential facts imperative for appreciating this order will suffice as captioned OP is one under Section 34 of A and C Act for which the statutory perimeter is very short and the legal landscape is very limited. To put it differently, the legal drill of testing a challenge to an arbitral award should perambulate within the limited contours and confines of Section 34 of A and C Act as it is neither an appeal nor a revision and therefore, short facts shorn of elaboration will suffice. Short facts are that protagonist of captioned OP i.e., petitioner in captioned OP was awarded a contract vide 'Letter of Award dated 23.08.2006 bearing reference EHL/PROJ/2006- 07-021' (hereinafter 'said contract' for convenience) for civil and structural construction; that the contract value is little over Rs.15.97 crores (Rs.15,97,71,527/- to be precise); that the contract period is 550 days spanning from 24.08.2006 to 25.02.2008; that the contract ran into rough weather owing to alleged delay on the part