Arbitration authority includes interpreting contract terms and assessing evidence; coercion in contract amendments can lead to enforceable claims for damages due to delays.

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [‘Act of 1996’] has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the arbitral award dated 12.04.2019 [‘impugned award’] passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings pertaining to the contract bearing CA No. CEDZ//28 of 2008 09: Provn of OTM Accn for INF BN-III of 60 INF BDE at Delhi Cantt. [‘the Contract’] executed between the parties herein.

2. The Petitioner herein i.e., Union of India was the respondent and the Respondent herein i.e., Mago Constructions Pvt. Ltd. was the claimant in the arbitral proceedings. For ease of reference, the parties are being referred to as their rank and status in the present proceedings.

Factual Matrix

3. The facts, as stated in the pleadings, which are relevant for the adjudication of the present matter, are summarised as under: -

3.1. The parties herein entered into the Contract for construction of KLP for III^rd Infantry Battalion of 60 Infantry Brigade at Delhi Cantt for a sum a of Rs. 19,14,30,870/-. The work under the Contract was to be completed within a period of twenty-six [26] months and was covered under three [3]

phases.

3.2. It is stated that Phase-I covered construction of buildings as per Appendix-D to Schedule-A of the Contract. The time period for completion of this phase was twenty-three [23] months from the date of beginning of said works.

3.3. The second phase i.e., Phase-II covered construction of all other buildings as was mentioned in Section I to Schedule-A of the Contract and other parts of the schedule. The time period for this phase was twenty [20] months. And the last phase i.e., Phase-III covered dismantling and demolition of all the buildings except those that were already covered under Phase-land as stated in Appendix-B to Schedule-A of the Contract. The time period for this phase was five [5] months.

3.4. The site for work was initially handed over to the Respondent vide Work Order No.1 (P) dated 07.02.2009 with date of commencement of work as 16.02.2009 for Phase-I and II and as 16.11.2010 for Phase-III.

3.5. It is stated that the Contract was duly amended on 05.12.2013 and thirteen [13] buildings were removed from the scope of the Contract.

3.6. It is stated the since certain disputes arose between the parties, a request was made to the learned Arbitrator to act as a sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement as stipulated in Condition 70 of the General Conditions of Contract, which also forms the part of the Contract executed between the parties.

3.7. It is stated that the Claimant/Respondent herein filed eleven [11] claims and the Respondent therein/Petitioner herein filed only one [1] claim before the sole arbitrator.

3.8. Subsequently, the arbitral award dated 1