The court's decision highlighted the importance of a reasoned Arbitral Award and the limitations of the court in addressing the loss of time due to lengthy arbitration processes.

JUDGMENT :

(Vipin Sanghi, J.)

1. Both these petitions, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 01.02.2023, rendered by the Commercial Court, Dehradun, in Arbitration Case No. 114 of 2018, C.G. No. 42 of 2022, as well as Arbitration Case No. 246 of 2019, C.G. No. 41 of 2022, respectively, whereby the objections to the Arbitral Award dated 05.09.2018, rendered by the sole Arbitrator Shri Suresh Kumar Bajaj, have been allowed, and the Award has been set aside on the ground that the Award is unreasoned.

2. We can do no better then to set out the Award itself to demonstrate that the Award, is, infact, completely unreasoned.

“ARBITRATION AWARD

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION

BETWEEN

Kaushalya Contractors & Developers Pvt. Ltd. - CLAIMANT

And

BHEL, (CFFP), Ranipur, Haridwar - RESPONDENT

AWARD

This award is made on 5th September, 2018.

Whereas, vide a contract dated 3rd April 2008, between the claimant i.e. Kaushalya Contractors & Developers of the one part and the respondents BHEL (CFFP) on the other part. The claimant was to carry out the Extension of Steel Foundry on Eastern and Western sides and also the Extension of Heavy Machine Shop in CFFP, Haridwar amounting to Rs.2,23,79,427.09 and the work order agreement was drawn on 3rd April, 2008. In addition, the service tax @ 2% or as per statutory requirements on overall cost of the work was to be paid by BHEL. The claimant stated that nature of work was extension of running plant by construction of heavy foundation, fabrication and construction of heavy steel structures. The claimants were to provide labour and some material for the execution of work whereas the main construction materials like cement, reinforcement and structural steel, T&P, machines etc. required for the work were to be arranged and supplied by CFFP free of cost. The stipulated time for completion of the work was 12 months.

The claimant stated that respondent never supplied timely materials nor machines required as per the agreement. The claimant further stated that the respondent without resolving bottlenecks and obstacles at site kept on pressurizing for the progress of the work which was not possible. The claimant also stated that the respondents never made the payments of running bills on time.

Whereas, the dispute arose between the parties to the contract. I was appointed as an Arbitrator vide communication dated 15.10.2011 in the aforesaid dispute. Pursuant to the procedural directions issued by me vide communication dated 30.11.2011. The parties submitted their claims, the statement of defense, counter claims and rejoinder.

Whereas, I heard the parties at length on the sittings held at Administrative buildings of the respondent company at Ranipur, Haridwar and afforded full opportunity to both the parties and followed the principles of natural justice. Whereas, after hearing both the parties and after hearing the respective submissions of the parties and perusal of the documents/written submissions and evidences on records, I proceed to decide the respective cases of the parties herein as under.

Claimant’s Case

Claim 1: Payment of final bill as per work executed at site.

Payment of final Bill of Rs.797,055/- + Rs 170,569/- against extra work done and certified in the annexure C-73 maybe released as already certified by the respondents. Total amount 9,67,624/- to be paid subject to fulfilling the legal formalities by the claimants if any.

Claim 2: Release of security amount deposited either in the shape of DD, FDR or Deducted from the R.A. Bills

Security deposits of Rs. 12,68,972/- to be paid as per clause 16(a) of the contract. Also an additional amount of Rs.321,584/- deducted through RA bills is also to be refunded to the claimants.

Claim 3: Reimbursement of Liquidated Damages illegally received by the Respondents of Rs.22,37,943/-

Since the responsibility of delay in the works solely by the claimants could not be established by the Respondents and hence t