IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contract terms, breach of contract, and the limited scope of interference with the arbitrator's award based on the violation of public policy.

JUDGMENT :

D. Krishnakumar, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Sec.13(1) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the judgment, dated 3.8.2021 made in O.P.No.227 of 2019.)

1. The challenge in the instant intra Court appeal is against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the O.P.No.227 of 2019 by holding that the award passed by the Arbitrator cannot be stated as violative of the provision of law and public policy of India and confirmed the award passed by the Arbitrator.

2. Facts in Brief:

The respondent was the successful bidder in the tender invited by the appellant for construction of Head End Cells (Balance works) for DFRP at IGCAR, Kalpakkam and allied works. The appellant issued a letter of intent on 02.11.2010 and the contract was signed on 03.3.2011 for a contract price of Rs.17,00,13,250/-. The contract is valid for 16 months. As per the contract, the project was to commence on 01.12.2010. The time frame fixed by the appellant to complete and hand over the said project was on or before 31.3.2012. The dispute arose between the parties is that inordinate delay in the execution of the project attributable solely to the acts and omissions of the respondent and consequently, terminated the agreement by the appellant, forfeiture of the security deposit and earnest money deposit and encashment of the Bank guarantee provided by the respondent. The project work was commenced on 01.12.2010. As per the contractual terms, the schedule date for completion of the project was 31.3.2012. However, the work was not executed within a period agreed in the contract and extension of time was also granted five times from 21.8.2012 till 31.3.2016. The ground for delay attributed on the respondent is that the work was started after the stipulated date of completion due to non availability of specified aggregate in the nearby area and also policy change on mining by the Government resulting in rates are revised by the Government which has become unworkable. The contract was however, continued after a revised design dispensing with the special aggregate and the revised drawings were also given on 28.9.2013. The dispute arose when the show cause notice issued by the appellant on 25.11.2014. As there was no certainty about the time of completion, the delay was attributed only to the respondent even after the appraisal of the nature of work and condition of labour force deployed. Therefore, the respondent have no option except to rescind the contract, as the work was not completed within a time agreed or extended. The respondent also raised individual claims as well as counter claims.

3. The learned Arbitrator upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, had passed an award for a sum of Rs.2,09,45,305/- and also allowed the counter claim of Rs.7,46,000/- and finally passed an award for a sum of Rs.2,01,99,305/- with simple interest at the rate of 6%.

4. Aggrieved by the award, O.P.No.227 of 2019 has been filed before this Court by the appellant to set aside the award.

5. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal;

i. Time being the essence of the contract.

ii. The findings in the award passed by the arbitrator without considering the contention of the appellant, was in violation of the provisions of law and Public Policy of the Government of India.

iii. The learned Single Judge while confirming the award passed by the arbitrator held that the respondent/claimant is entitled for refund of the security deposit, which is contrary to the terms of the contract under Section of 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant fairly accepted that he is unable to sustain the challenge made in respect of claim awarded by the arbitrator in favour of the respondent/claimant under claim nos.1 &2 and therefore, the appellant is not contestin