Judicial review under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited and requires interference only in cases of patent illegality or public policy violations; claims meeting the "Vivad se Vishwas II" scheme must be accepted without discretion.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. Since these applications arise from the same facts and involve the same parties, the same were taken up for hearing together and are being dealt with by this Common Judgment and Order

2. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act” for brevity) has been filed seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Arbitration Petition No.3 of 2019 arising out of arbitration award dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator Retd. Justice M.M.Das. The Writ Petition is preferred by the Respondent in ARBA No.8 of 2023 seeking a direction to the Appellant in ARBA No.8 of 2023 to accept the proposal submitted by the Respondent on 03.08.2023 in pursuance of the Vivad Se Viswas II Scheme.

3. As the Writ Petition seeks a direction that pertains to execution of the award that is under challenge in the ARBA, it is considered apposite to first deal with the questions raised vis-à-vis sustainability of the award itself.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

4. The Appellant invited tenders for the work of “Railway Works for Deep Drought Berths at Paradip Port”. Pursuant to such invitation, the Respondent submitted its tender on 30.11.2013. Subsequently, the letter of award was issued in favour of the Respondent on 4.12.2014 for a total value of Rs.78,65,64,301.50/. The date of commencement of work was stipulated to be 5.1.2015 and the scheduled date of completion was by 4.4.2016.

5. On 1.6.2015 an agreement was executed between the Parties specifying all the terms and conditions for the work in question.

6. The Respondent submitted an application on 29.3.2016 seeking extension of time. The extension was provided up till 30.3.2017 with imposition of liquidated damages/penalty.

7. As the work could not be completed within the extended period, the Appellant terminated the contract vide letter dated 4.4.2017. The Respondent thereafter, invoked arbitration for adjudication of the dispute arising out of the termination, imposition of damages, delay and incidental issues.

8. Thereafter, Ld. Single Arbitrator, Retd. Justice M.M. Das was appointed to adjudicate upon the dispute between the Parties.

9. After hearing the parties, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator was pleased to pass his final award on 12.4.2019 wherein, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator was pleased award Rs.13,66,01,820/- in favour of the Respondent.

10. Aggrieved, the Appellant assailed the final award dated 12.4.2019 under Section 34 of the A&C Act in the Court of the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Arbitration Petition No. 3 of 2019. Vide judgment dated 4.2.2023, the Ld. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur was pleased to dismiss the same upon arriving at the conclusion that the award was not in violation of the public policy of India, did not contain any plausible fact that would shock the conscience of the court and did not have any patent illegality on the face of the record.

11. Aggrieved by the same, the instant Appeal has been preferred.

12. The Appeal u/s 37 of the A&C Act was filed on 23.3.2023. During the pendency of the same before this Court, the Respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 7019 of 2024 on 18.3.2024 seeking a direction against the Appellant to accept the proposal submitted by it on 3.8.2023 in pursuance to the Vivad se Vishwas II (contractual disputes) scheme dated 29.5.2023.

13. As the facts leading up to the instant Applications 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