The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the award.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb 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 24.10.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda in ARB(P) No.104 of 2011 arising out of award dated 31.1.2011passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Proceeding No.1 of 2002.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

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

i. The Railways entered into an agreement dated 4.11.1992 with the present Respondent for executing the work i.e. roof treatment with Tar-felting to Service and Residential building pursuant to tender notice issued by the Railway.

ii. The work was awarded to the present Respondent vide letter of acceptance dated 7.4.1992 at the value of Rs.1,66,600/- for completion of work within three months from the date of the letter of acceptance. The original date of completion was thus stipulated to be 3.7.1992.

iii. However, the present Respondent did not complete the work on time and made two requests for extension of time, which were allowed and the time for completion was extended up to 31.5.1993.

iv. Despite extension, it appears that the present Respondent neither completed the work, nor sought further extension and therefore, the present Petitioner-Railways rescinded the contract as per Clause 62 of the GCC at the cost and risk of the present Respondent.

v. Being aggrieved by the recission of contract, and a subsequent claim made by the Railways, the present Respondent approached the Petitioner-Railways for arbitration. The present Respondent claimed a total sum of Rs.7,32,512/- with interest under 14 claim heads. The present Petitioner filed a counter claim denying all claims demanded by the present Respondent and also made a counter claim of Rs.40,000/-.

vi. Vide award dated 31.1.2011, the Ld. Arbitrators awarded a total sum of Rs.6,66,724/- including interest at 12% per annum along with the cost of arbitration at Rs.30,000/- in favour of the present Respondent. The said awarded amount was payable within three months from the date of award, failing which interest would accrue on the awarded amount at 12% per annum.

a. Aggrieved, the present Appellants approached the Court of the Ld. District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar under Section 34 in ARB(P) No. 104 of 2011 seeking setting aside of the award for being beyond the terms of the contract and opposite to public policy of India.

b. The Ld. District Judge vide the impugned order dated 24.10.2017 was pleased to uphold the findings of the Ld. Arbitrators, resulting in the present Petition.

3. Now that the facts leading up to the instant Appeal has 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 Section 37 of the A&C Act.

II. APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

4. The Ld. counsel for the Appellants strenuously urged that the Arbitral Tribunal had fallen into patent error, both on facts and in law, by misconstruing the express covenants of the agreement and thereby transgressing the limits of its jurisdiction. It was further contended that the Tribunal, in purporting to adjudicate and allow nearly all the claims of the Respondent, acted ultra vires the arbitral reference, particularly in view of the admitted position that the contractual execution period had lapsed on 31.05.19