IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) While exercising power under Section 34 of A & C Act, arbitral award can only be confirmed or set aside, but not modified.
(2) Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal cannot be set aside on the ground that it was erroneous.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J.—The Appellant-Company, by filing this Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the A&C Act’ 1996), has assailed the judgment dated 24.07.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Arb(P) No.176 of 2012 in the matter of an application under section 34 of the Act. This Appellant had filed the application under section 34 of the A & C Act praying to set aside the award dated 13.06.2012 passed by the learned Arbitrator. By the said award, the learned Arbitrator held the Respondent No.1 (Claimant) to be entitled to a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from the present Appellant. The learned Arbitrator having so directed the Appellant to pay the said amount to the Respondent No.1-Company (Claimant), has further directed that the same be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from October, 2000 up-till the date of award and thereafter @ 12 % till payment along with the cost of the proceeding assessed at Rs.1,18,500/-

2. Factual Matrix of the Case:-

On 02.09.1996 the Airport Authority of India Ltd. floated the tender for award of work of “Runway Extension Site” at Bhubaneswar Airport. On 04.12.1996, the Appellant was awarded with the work for its execution. In undertaking the said work, the Appellant entered into an agreement with Respondent No.2-Company for execution of part work as awarded under the contract. The Respondent No.2 in order to carry out its obligation which required to procure raw materials such as sand and moorum for the work, floated another tender for Raising and Transportation of Runway Construction Materials. Finally, on 01.06.2000 agreement was entered into between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 for the above raising and transportation of the raw materials. The agreement between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 had been made with the knowledge of the Appellant whose authorized signatory had also lent his signature thereon. The Respondent No.1 since did not receive the payment, the dispute having arisen out of the agreement between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 which has been executed with the knowledge of the Appellant and wherein the authorized signatory of the Appellant had also signed, the Respondent No.1 as per the clause in the agreement approached this Court for payment of his dues in W.P.(C) No.3785 of 2005. This Court then directed the Appellant to consider and dispose of the representation of the Respondent No.1. On 27.04.20005 the representation of Respondent No.1 for payment of his dues was rejected by the Appellant. So, on 29.08.2005, the Respondent No.1 gave notice to the Appellant for adjudication of the dispute for arbitration as stipulated in Clause-13 of the agreement. Since there was no response, the Respondent No.1-Company filed an application under section 11(6) of the A & C Act before this Court for appointment of the Arbitrator. The Hon’ble Chief Justice by order dated 25.11.2011 appointed Mr. S.F. Ahmed, a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator to decide the dispute within six months of entering the reference. The Appellant-Company then filed a Miscellaneous Application which stood numbered as Misc. Case No.5 of 2012 before this Court for recall of order dated 25.11.2011 appointing the Arbitrator and decide the application afresh. That application stood rejected by order dated 30.03.2012 and there was also no interim order in the said Miscellaneous Application.

3. The Arbitrator having received the letter of the court on 17.01.2012 issued notice to the parties by Registered Post with A.D. as well as through Courier Service calling upon them to appear in person or through their Advocate on 04.02.2012 at 2 p.m. at the venue fixed by him and so indicated in the notice. Several dates having been fixed by the learned Arbitrator when finally on 22.05.2012 none appeared on behalf of the Appellant and Respondent No.2 and an application for further adjournment was sought for, the lea