1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under S.37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with S.13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

3. The appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2025 (hereinafter, the 'impugned judgment') passed by the Court of District Judge (Commercial Court) - 05, South East District, Saket, New Delhi in Arb. A. (Comm.) No. 1/2020.

4. The Commercial Court, vide the impugned judgment, has set aside the award dated 21st May, 2020 (hereinafter, 'the arbitral award') passed by Sh. K B Rajoria (hereinafter, 'the Sole Arbitrator'), on the ground that he was ineligible to be appointed as the Arbitrator in the matter in view of S.12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant did not object to the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator who was appointed and the arbitral award was thus, subsequently passed by the Sole Arbitrator. Additionally, the Respondent also did not raise any objection in this regard. Thus, it is contended by the Appellant that the award was set aside by the Commercial Court merely on technical grounds and without going into the merits of the case - that too without either side raising any objection to the appointment.

6. Both Mr. Mehrotra and Ms. Avni Singh, ld. Counsels have made their respective submissions today and have cited their respective case laws.

7. Ms. Avni Singh, ld. Counsel has handed over a short affidavit deposed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Executive Engineer, PWD Division, South - East Road2 (M - 442), Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi to the following effect:
"I, SANJAY KUMAR, S/o Sh. RAM BACHAN PRASAD SINGH aged about 58 years posted as EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. having its office at PWD DIVISION SOUTH EAST ROAD - 2 (M - 442), SUKHDEV VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 110025 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:
1. That the Appellant has filed an appeal under S.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Impugned Judgement and Order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Court of Shri Bhupesh Narula. District Judge (Commercial Court) 05. South East District. Saket. New Delhi in Arb. A. (Comm.) No. 1/2020.
2. That in the said Impugned Order, the Ld. District Court has set aside the Award dated 21.05.2020 on the ground of illegal appointment of Arbitrator. In this regard. it is submitted that the Arbitrator was appointed by the Answering Respondent with the full consent of the Appellant herein and at no stage, was any objection raised by the Appellant.
3. That it is further submitted nonetheless the Award dated 21.05.2020 is liable to be set aside on merits since it suffers from illegality and is in conflict with the public policy of India for the reasons set out in the appeal filed by the Respondent.
4. That it is further submitted that if the present Appeal of the Appellant is allowed and the Impugned Order set aside. then the matter should be remanded back and the S.34 appeal filed by the Respondent ought to be heard on merits."

8. Heard counsel for the parties. The brief factual background of the case is that in the year 2017, percentage - rate tenders were invited by Respondent for the work of strengthening of SA Road from Outer Ring Road to MB Road Point. The estimated cost of the work put to tender was Rs.14,09,69,619/-.

9. Appellant's bid was found to be the lowest by 37.08 percent below the said estimated cost put to tender. Thus, the tendered amount of the Appellant worked out to Rs.8,86,98,062/-. An agreement was thereafter executed between the parties.

10. The time allowed for completion of the said work was 60 days and the stipulated dates of start and completion of the work were fixed as 14th March, 2017 and 13th May, 2017, respectively. However, the work was finally completed on 27th September, 2017. It is the case of the Petitioner that the delay occurred due to some problems