JUDGMENT

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum- Commercial Court, Chandigarh whereby the petition filed by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") has been dismissed and he has further prayed for setting aside the award dated 26.05.2015.

2. Facts of the case are that the contract agreement No.CE(AF) NGP/CHD-38/2006-07 was executed between the Union of India and M/s Treohan and sons for construction of the Bulk Shed for storing Aero Engine, Bulky items and allied services at Air Force Station Chandigarh. The lump sum contract amount was agreed to be sum of Rs.2,91,99,996.15/-. According to the contract, the work was to commence on 21.12.2006 and the same was to be completed on 20.12.2007. The respondent No.1 failed to complete the job within the stipulated time and applied for extension of time to complete the job on his own reasons. The Union of India granted him extension upto 20.03.2010. After the completion of the work and payment of the final bill, the contractor has raised certain disputes and invoked condition 70 of IAFW 2249 General condition forming part of the contract for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon this dispute. Accordingly, respondent No.2 was appointed as an Arbitrator and the disputes as raised by respondent No.1 were referred to him for adjudication. The Sole Arbitrator had made and published the award on 26.05.2015 granting the award in favour of respondent No.1.

3. The appellant challenged the award by filing an application raising objection under section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Chandigarh and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 05.12.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award dated 26.05.2015 as well as the judgment dated 05.12.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Commercial Court, Chandigarh, on the ground that the Arbitrator has failed to publish the award within 6 months from the date of reference i.e. 23.03.2013. The award was published on 26.05.2015 that is even beyond the period of one year. The award was passed beyond the stipulated period under Section 29 -A of the Arbitration Act, as such it suffers from incurable illegality and on this ground alone, the impugned award as well as the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2022 are liable to be set aside. He further argued that the learned Arbitrator- respondent No.2 has misconducted himself by ignoring the special condition No.39 of the contract where it is provided that the escalation in price of material is payable till the stipulated period and even for extended period as per the formula prescribed under W1 of special condition. Therefore, the respondent No.1- Contractor was not entitled to material price variation during the extended period since the appellant has already paid the escalation according to the formula given in the special condition stated above. He further assailed the award and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Chandigarh, on the ground that both forums have misread and mis-appreciated the evidence produced by the parties on file and have also misconstrued and misinterpreted the law applicable to the facts of the present case.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the record carefully, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and requires dismissal in view of the f