IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly regarding the filing of Section 34 applications during the pendency of Section 33 applications, and the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct procedural errors.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Thangkhiew, J. - Matter is taken up via Video Conferencing.

2. The instant petition before this Court under Article 227 has been filed seeking to set aside and quash orders dated 29-10-2021, 17-11-2021 and 10-12-2021 passed by the learned Commercial Court, Shillong in Commercial Case. No. 13/2021 initiated by respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner is aggrieved by the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Commercial Court in assuming jurisdiction by allegedly ignoring the provisions of Section 34 and 36 of the Act; and in passing the impugned orders which have deprived the petitioner from the fruits of the award. The main contention of the petitioner is that while an application under Section 33 was pending before the Arbitral Tribunal, the respondents filed an application under Section 34 before the learned Commercial Court which was taken up for consideration and orders were passed thereon, which according to the petitioner are illegal and without jurisdiction.

3. The factual background leading to the present dispute is that the petitioner was awarded a contract for 2 laning of Shillong - Nongstoin section of NH 44 E and Nongstoin- Rongjeng-Tura Road in the State of Meghalaya under Phase-A of SARDP-NE-NH 44-E and SR-MG-PWD-2010-11-172, and an agreement to this effect, was executed between the petitioner and the respondents on 21-02-2011. The initial contract price was fixed at Rs. 1303 crores, but subsequently, due to variations and increase in the scope of work, the contract price was revised by the respondent through various Revised Cost Estimates and the contract price thereafter stood at Rs. 2406.06 crores.

4. That during the execution of the project, certain disputes arose between the parties and after extension of time, the project was completed on 31-12-2017, after a delay of 45(forty-five) months. To resolve the disputes, the dispute resolution clause was invoked by the petitioner and thereafter, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted and came into reference on 10-04-2019. In the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, the petitioner then filed an application under Section 31(6) seeking an interim award on a part of the dispute and for the remainder of the dispute, a statement of claims was filed on 31-05-2019. Vide order dated 27-07-2021, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded 75 crores to the petitioner, on a finding that there was overwhelming material on record, to justify the said entitlement for an interim award as prayed for.

5. Thereafter, it appears that on 16-08-2021, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33(1)(a) and 33(4) of the Act seeking correction of the interim award as well as for an additional award towards the claims which though claimed, did not form part of the interim award. To this application, it also appears, that the respondent filed a reply on 13-09-2021. On 28-10-2021 when the matter was fixed for arguments, an adjournment was taken by the respondent and the matter stood deferred to 08-11-2021 and on this date, the petitioner was served with an application under Section 34 filed by the respondent before the learned Commercial Court, along with a copy of an order dated 29.10.2021, granting an unconditional stay of the award dated 27-07-2021.

6. The proceeding before the learned Commercial Court then resulted in further orders being passed dated 17-11-2021, which slightly modified the stay order dated 29-10-2021 and 10-12-2021, wherein the learned Commercial Court passed orders for the continuance of the interim order staying the award. The petitioner in these proceedings had also sought for dismissal of the Section 34 application and for vacation of the stay order dated 29-10-2021. In the meantime, the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 21-12-2021, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 of the Act. Being aggrieved with the interim orders dated 29-10-2021, 17-11-2021 and 10-12-2021, passed by the lea