The court emphasized that arbitral awards should not be interfered with solely based on disagreements with findings, affirming the limited grounds for appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act hereunder) against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the District Commercial Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) 03 of 2020.

2. The factual context of the case is as under:

Appellant, M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. (EPIL for short) (a Government of India Enterprise) signed an agreement in the form of MOU with the Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura on 15.11.2007 for construction of the College of Agriculture at Lembucherra. Appellant split up the entire project into 3 packages for suitably executing the work and floated Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) for construction of the college building at Lembucherra which was in package-1. The NIT was so published on 06.02.2008. Respondent, M/s. M.P Khaitan, a registered contractor participated in the tender process along with other contractors and submitted its tender. The tender submitted by the claimant-respondent M/s. M.P. Khaitan having stood the lowest, the General Manager, EPIL, Kolkata issued a Letter of Intent (LOI for short) in favour of the claimant on 10.03.2008. An agreement was thereafter executed between the appellant and respondent, M/s. M.P. Khaitan on 25.04.2008. The LOI indicated that date of commencement of the work would be reckoned from the 10th day of issuance of the LOI. The contract between the parties which was valued at Rs.22,79,80,148.70/- was stipulated to be completed within a period of 18 months i.e. by 20.09.2009. The different units which were to be constructed under package-1 were to be as under: (i) Boys' hostel, (ii) Guest house, (iii) Workshop, (iv) Auditorium, (v) Boys' hostel (PG), (vi) New college building complex with library and canteen, (vii) Local shopping complex, (viii) Mini sports stadium, (ix) Dispensary building and (x) Garage.

3. Since completion of the work within time depended on the performance of the reciprocal obligations, it was agreed upon between the parties that the appellant would hand over the dispute free worksite, designs and drawings etc. to the claimant-respondent within the stipulated time and the appellant would also make timely payment to the claimant-respondent as per the agreement.

4. The claimant-respondent started the work in time and applied due diligence for execution of the work in time but due to frequent interruptions by the appellant, the claimant-respondent could not complete the work within the stipulated period of 20.09.2009. By 20.09.2009, the claimant completed only one unit i.e. the PG hostel. Seven other units were completed on 19.07.2011 at 22 months' delay. Even on 19.07.2011, the garage could not be completed due to non-availability of proper site.

5. However, after delayed completion of the work, claimant-respondent claimed completion certificate from the appellant but the appellant, despite series of communications made by the claimant, did not issue the certificate in his favour which deprived the claimant-respondent of getting higher ranking from NBCC and Government contracts of higher amount. Aggrieved claimant-respondent moved the Gauhati High Court by filing a writ petition seeking direction to the appellant for issuing completion certificate. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, completion certificate was issued to the claimant-respondent.

6. Having received the completion certificate from the appellant, claimant raised bill of a sum of Rs.92,74,632/-. Gross value of the work was Rs.22,79,80,148.70/-. A