The appellate court's jurisdiction under the arbitration statute is strictly supervisory and limited. It may not re-appreciate evidence, perform independent factual calculations, or entertain fresh pleas regarding computational adjustments not effectively urged during the arbitral proceedings, provided the award is not demonstrably illegal or perverse.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[Section 37] [hereinafter referred to as ‘A&C Act’], the Appellant assails the correctness of the judgment dated 24.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM) 277/2021. The said petition had been instituted under Section 34 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Section 34 Petition’] of the A&C Act, [Section 34], assailing the arbitral award dated 23.01.2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Award’] rendered by the learned Sole Arbitrator [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Arbitrator’]. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge declined interference and upheld the Award.

2. The present Appeal is confined to Claim No.6 of the Award as admitted by the learned Counsel representing the Appellant in the Order dated 17.09.2024 of this Court. The Appellant submits that the computation undertaken by the Arbitrator in respect of the said claim suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as an amount relatable to mobilization advance, which, according to the Appellant, stood recovered/adjusted, has not been duly accounted for, thereby resulting in an alleged excess award in favour of the Respondent. It is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in declining interference under Section 34 despite the aforesaid infirmity.

3. Since the present proceedings arise under Section 37 against an order refusing to set aside the Award, the scope of interference is necessarily limited. The question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in declining to interfere with the Award under Section 34, particularly when the Appellant alleges that the amount awarded under Claim No.6 fails to account for adjustment of mobilization advance, thereby resulting in an excess payment in favour of the Respondent.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. Before examining the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to briefly notice the factual background giving rise to the present Appeal.

5. The dispute between the parties arises out of a Contract Agreement dated 07.12.2012 executed between the Appellant and the Respondent for the execution of certain works. Differences having arisen in relation to the execution of the contract and the financial claims emanating therefrom, the dispute was referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the Contract Agreement.

6. Pursuant thereto, the Arbitrator, Sh. Harpal Singh (Chief Engineer, Headquarters, Northern Railways) was appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The Respondent herein, being the claimant before the Arbitrator, preferred its Statement of Claims dated 11.05.2016, raising multiple claims against the Appellant. The Appellant filed its Statement of Defence dated 03.10.2016, contesting the claims. The parties thereafter filed their respective