The court reaffirmed the limited scope of review for arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, focusing on patent illegality and contractual obligations as defined within the signed agreement.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 13-12-2018 passed by the Commercial Court (District Level) Raipur, whereby the Commercial Court repelled challenge to award dated 20-12-2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, awarding amount to the tune of Rs.7,03,33,247/- (Seven Crore Three Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Seven), (Rs.5,50,00,000/- + Interest thereon @ 14.05% plus 2% per annum) in favour of the respondent M/s JITF Water Infra Limited, Naya Raipur.

2. The appellant herein is Naya Raipur Development Authority (For short YNRDAV), a Special Area Development Authority, being Nodal Agency of State of Chhattisgarh, who invited a request for proposal (RFP) vide notice dated 06-06-2008. The notice comprised of Detailed Project Report (DPR), bid documents and Draft Concession Agreement to design, finance, built, operate, manage and maintain the work of development of water supply system in Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
The respondent had also submitted a bid and after scrutiny, all the bid followed by the series of discussions, finally it was accepted and the respondent was declared selected bidder followed by the Letter of Acceptance dated 12-08-2009. The parties thereafter entered into an agreement on 05-11-2009 and work order was also issued on 05-11-2009. During the course of finalization of project work and all other necessities towards the process of work, though number of discussions, deliberations and correspondences were held, a dispute arose with regard to scope of concessionaire. When a review meeting was held between the parties from 22-05-2012 to 24-05-2012, the respondent claimed that the construction of staff quarters are not within the scope of work awarded to it and it was not mentioned in the Concessionaire Agreement. According to the appellant, in the agreement executed between the parties, work of construction of staff quarter was very much included in the scope of work of development of water supply system and this led to dispute between the parties. As dispute existed, despite insistence of the appellant - Naya Raipur Development Authority, the respondent did not undertake the work of construction of staff quarters. Payment to the tune of Rs.5,50,00,000/- was withheld by the appellant. All attempts to resolve the dispute by both the parties having failed, the arbitration clause under the agreement was invoked and dispute was referred to the Sole Arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause. The respondent raised claim before the Arbitrator stating that he was entitled to payment of withheld amount along with interest totaling Rs.7,03,33,247/-. The claim also included cost of the arbitration.
The arbitrator allowed both the parties to lead evidence and after considering the respective submissions, the Sole Arbitrator accepted the claim on 20-12-2017 of the non - applicant and passed the award in his favour.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award passed by the Arbitrator, the appellant - NRDA challenged the same by moving an application under S.34 of the Arbitration and Re - conciliation Act, 1996, (For short "the Act of 1996"). The Commercial Court, however, dismissed the application holding that the interference with the award was outside the permissible scope of interference as provided under S.34 of the Act of 1996, as the award did not suffer from any patent illegality or any grounds made out warranting interference against award. This led to filing of instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued in extenso, referred to the terms and c