The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is severely limited and cannot involve reevaluation of merits or factual findings.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act”) has been filed against the judgment dated 22.3.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in Arbitration Misc. Case No.134 of 2016, arising out of award dated 8.3.2016 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Proceeding No.5 of 2012.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. For the sake of brevity, the facts involved in the appeals are pithily discussed herein:

a. In pursuance to the tender call notice invited by the Respondents for the work “Construction of Multi-Purpose School-Cum-Cyclone Building at Ramachandi Sahi Girls Nodal U.P. School and at Rebana Nuagaon Nodal U.P. School”, the Appellant submitted its bid.

b. The bid submitted by the Appellant was the lowest valid bid for contract value of Rs. 33,45,799/- and therefore, the tender was awarded in his favour.

c. Accordingly, agreement for work was executed on 16.11.2004 and the work order was subsequently issued on 18.11.2004. As per the terms of the agreement, the work was to be completed by 17.4.2005.

d. However, work did not commence in its true spirit due to certain exigent circumstances which led to the Respondents terminating the agreement on 13.10.2006.

e. The order of termination intimated to the Appellant that it could make any claims, it had qua the work, which the Appellant did. However, disputes arose pertaining to the quantum of the claims raised by the Appellant.

f. Thereafter, the Appellant approached this Court u/s 11(6) of the A&C Act in ARBP No. 9 of 2010 for appointment of an arbitrator. Accordingly, vide order dated 5.10.2022 in ARBP No. 9 of 2010, this Court appointed Sri. S.F. Ahmed, Retired District Judge as the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the Parties.

g. Accordingly, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator after hearing both sides and considering the documents as well as the oral evidences of the Parties was pleased to pass award dated 8.3.2016. In the said award, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has been pleased to allow 6 of the 12 claims resulting in an amount of Rs. 5,97,084/- along with pre-reference and pendente lite interest @ 10% and future interest till the date of actual payment.

h. Aggrieved, the present Respondents preferred an application u/s 34 of the A&C Act before the Court of the Ld. District Judge, Puri. The Ld. District Judge vide the impugned order dated 22.3.2022 was pleased to uphold the findings of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator but has modified the amount of the award, resulting in the present Petition.

1. Now, the facts leading to the instant Appeals have been laid down, this Court shall endeavour to summarise the contentions of the Parties and the broad grounds that have been raised to seek the exercise of this Court’s limited jurisdiction available under S. 37 of the A&C Act.

II. APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

3. The counsel for the Claimant assails the judgment of the Ld. District Judge mainly on the ground that though the Ld. District Judge has held that the non-execution of the contract work was due to the fault of the Respondents and has acknowledged that the Court while exercising power u/s 34 cannot act as an appellate authority, the L