The scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is extremely limited; courts should not sit in appeal on facts or re-appreciate evidence unless the award suffers from specific legal infirmities or patent illegality appearing on the face of the record.

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey. J.

1. The present batch of arbitration appeals arise out of common order passed by the learned Commercial Court as well as the learned Arbitrator, as such the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The arbitration appeals i.e. ARBA Nos.36, 37, 39 & 40 of 2020 have been preferred by the State seeking setting aside the common order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned Commercial Court as well as the common arbitral award dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, whereas ARBA Nos.41 & 42 of 2020 have been preferred by the Gilcon Project Service Ltd against the common order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned Commercial Court seeking interest on the amount claimed before it.

3. Brief facts of the case are that two contract agreements, firstly contact agreement bearing No.24/RC-4/CGRRDA dated 23.10.2007 and secondly contract agreement bearing No.25-RC/4/CGRRDA dated 23.10.2007 were executed between the parties. The dispute arose between the parties in relation to both these agreements. Both the matters were referred for adjudication to learned sole Arbitrator pursuant to order of this Court. The dispute arising out of agreement No.24/RC-4/CGRRDA was registered as Arbitration Application No.7/2014 and the dispute arising out of agreement No.25/RC-4/CGRRDA was registered as Arbitration Application No.6/2014 before the learned sole Arbitrator. The learned sole Arbitrator adjudicated both the matters and passed the common arbitral award dated 31.08.2018. The learned sole Arbitrator treated the Arbitration Application No.6/2014 as the leading case and referred to the pleadings and documents filed in Arbitration Application No.6/14 in the common award. Against the award dated 31.08.2018, both the parties filed petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the learned Commercial Court and the learned Commercial Court registered MJC No.40/2018 and MJC No.43/2018 with regard to award related to contract agreement No.25-R-C/4/CGRRDA which is registered as Arbitration Application No.6/14 before the learned sole Arbitrator and MJC No.41/18 and 42/2018 were registered before the learned Commercial Court pertaining to the contract agreement No.24-RC-4/CGRRDA, which is registered as Arbitration Application No.7/14 in MJC No.40/2018. The learned Commercial Court passed a separate order on 29.02.2020, against which 4 appeals have been filed by the State, whereas 2 appeals have been filed by Gilcon Project. For ready reference, the details are described as under:-

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that there is error apparent on the face of the award and therefore the same is against the public policy because learned Sole Arbitrator as well as the learned Commercial Court travelling beyond the pleadings as well as the documents had recorded a perverse finding in the entire arbitral award. The learned Sole Arbitrator as well as the learned Commercial Court have failed to appreciate and consider the presence of a clear cut provision of Clause 6.5 of General Conditions of Contract. The contract was never foreclosed between the parties and the same was still alive the claimant Gilcon was required to full the conditions of the contract. The Arbitrator, being a creature of contract and has a duty to act within the four corners of the terms and conditions specifically agreed between the p