Judicial intervention in arbitration is limited, focusing on procedural irregularities rather than merit assessments.

1. After its failed attempt to challenge the Award dated 18th February 2018 before the Commercial Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, the State of Jharkhand has filed the present Commercial Appeal under S.13(1 - A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 .

2. In Arbitration Case No. 06 of 2019, the Commercial Court has held that the Award dated 18th February 2018 does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to set - aside the Award under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .

3. In the present Commercial Appeal, the State of Jharkhand has tried to demonstrate that the aforesaid finding of the Commercial Court has been rendered overlooking that the Arbitrator has committed serious errors in law in awarding interest from the date the contractor had invoked the Arbitration clause and has granted loss of profit to the tune of Rs. 5,97,234/- even though the claimant did not make such a claim.

4. An agreement in Form F2-06/2006-2007 was executed between M/s Prem Kumar and the State of Jharkhand for construction of Weir over Sona river near Sinni. The initial estimated cost of the work was Rs. 1,15,39,530/- and the time for completion of the work was six months from 17th January 2007. This is an admitted position that the claimant completed about 85% work under reference and invoked Clause 23 of the Agreement dated 17th January 2007 for resolution of the dispute between the parties. The claimant raised claims under 12 heads which included (i) release of bank guarantees (ii) security deposit deducted from the running bills (iii) hiring charge of JCB, dumper and tractor, labour charges and damages for wastage of cement, metal strips, sand chips etc. The Arbitrator framed 11 issues out of which Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 mainly pertained to allegation of obligations and defaults claimed by both the parties. Before the Arbitrator, the claimant examined himself as CW1 and proved the documents vide Ext. - 1 to Ext. - 17. The Arbitrator has found that the claimant was asked to work below the schedule - rate and due to flood the right - side of the Weir had completely washed away and the claimant had to face objections from the villagers when he attempted to start the work. The Arbitrator has recorded that (i) there was water - logging at the site and the claimant had to undertake this work on his own; (ii) there was a delay of about 2 and ½ months on the part of the department to issue work order for concrete work; (iii) the claimant was directed to start work with the revised map in anticipation of sanction; and (iv) the revision / modification made in the map was out of the scope of the Agreement. The Arbitrator has allowed the claims for release of bank guarantees and refund of security deposit. However, the claims of the plaintiff seeking damages and / or compensation for expenses incurred under 5 heads were partly allowed. And, the Claim Nos. 9 to 12 have been denied to the claimant.

5. The Commercial Court has taken note of the brief facts of the case, findings of the Arbitrator and scope of the interference by the Court under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .

6. The Presiding Officer of the Commercial Court at Jamshedpur has held as under:
"10 - B. Coming now to the grounds of challenge to the impugned award raised by the Petitioner is that the claim of the Respondent before the Learned Arbitrator was confined to payment of undisputed and admitted claim with the damage and compensation up on the opposite party / respondent. The learned Arbitrator summed up the claim of the claimant in para 28 of the Award, consisting of altogeth