The judgment emphasizes the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, highlighting the need for restraint by courts while examining the validity of arbitral awards.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. These appeals, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity), have been preferred by the Union of India through Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Services, Roorkee, District Haridwar and Contractor-M/s Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Sons against the judgments passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Commercial Court, Dehradun dated 27.02.2020 and 27.02.2020 in Arbitration Case Nos. 245 and 247 of 2019 respectively. As per impugned judgment dated 27.02.2020 passed in Arbitration Case No. 247 of 2019, initiated under Section 34 of the Act, the Appellate Court has rejected the claim nos. 1 and 9 of the Contractor amounting to Rs. 33,66,989.86 and Rs. 2,00,000/- and vide judgment dated 27.02.2020 passed in Arbitration Case No. 245 of 2019, the Original Court has rejected the claim no. 7(b) of the Contractor amounting to Rs. 25,50,390/-. The Contractor has approached this Court for restoration of his claims, as awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal and the Union of India has approached this Court for setting the aside the judgment of the Court as well as Arbitral Awards dated 28.03.2017 and 10.01.2019.

2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India would submit that the Arbitrator, under the condition 70 of I.A.F.W. 2239, had to pass the award within 6 months, which could have been extended only with the consent of both the parties. The six month period expired on 05.11.2016 and even then, both the parties did not extend the time. The award is not within time and against the procedure due to which it is against the public policy therefore, is liable to be set aside. Under the stated condition 70, it is also the provision that the arbitration proceeding cannot be conducted without completion of the work or expiry of the contract. The work of the road is not complete and therefore, the matter could not be referred to arbitration. Due to this reason also the Arbitral Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. The accepting officer on 16.04.2013 fixed the height of wiftwall to be 6.8 meter which was last and binding. Against this arbitration proceeding should not have been conducted. The mediator did not have jurisdiction of this. It is also stated that decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in relation to the wiftwall, as there was no contradiction, is also wrong and is against the terms of the contract and is against the acknowledgement of the Contractor. His conclusion is also wrong that decision of the Accepting Officer does not come under condition No. 6A. The payment made under Claim No. 1 being against condition No. 6A and 70 I.A.F.W. 2236 is against the public policy. The Applicant had thought about the Claim No. 2 related to the Wingwall from which the Contractor also agreed due to which in this relation monetary award cannot be passed. Similarly in relation to Claim No. 3A the Union of India had consented to which the Contractor agreed, therefore, in this relation also no award can be passed. Due to the same reason, no award could have been passed in relation to Claim 3B. In relation to Claim No. 4 both the parties agreed for Rs. 97,500/-. Due to which in relation to this also award cannot be passed. Claim No. 9 the Contractor wanted Sawstation and pump house building Kota Stone Flooring. There was provision of Antistatic in the drawing. The Arbitral Tribunal has wrongly concluded that for this, there was provision of P.C.C. flooring. The Contractor had done Kota Stone Flooring in place of Anti-Static Flooring. The Mediator has not taken into consideration the said facts and hence the award passed is against the law. The Applicant had no right for change in floor. The Arbitral Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the Contractor without deciding the counter-claim which is against the law and public policy. The parties agreed in relation to the Claim No. 10 and 11 and therefore this is liable to be set aside. The Contractor