ORDER

Captioned 'Original Petition' ['OP' for the sake of brevity] was taken up for final hearing in the regular physical Court today.

2. Mr.R.Venkataraman, learned counsel on record for sole petitioner and Dr.P.Vasudevan, learned counsel on record for the contesting first respondent, namely Corporation of Chennai were before me and captioned OP was taken up for final disposal and arguments of both sides were heard out with the consent of both learned counsel.

3. An 'Arbitral Award dated 15.02.2014 bearing reference Agreement No.BR.DC.No.B3/722/2006' [hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity] made by a three Member 'Arbitral Tribunal' ['AT' for the sake of brevity] has been assailed obviously under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity in the captioned OP. 4. To be noted, the three noble men, who constituted the AT have been arrayed as respondents 2, 3 and 4 in captioned OP. This Court, from the submissions made/grounds urged, finds that the presence of the three noble men, who constituted the AT in captioned OP is not necessary. Therefore, following the procedure adopted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zonal General Manager, Ircon International Ltd. Vs. Vinay Heavy Equipments reported in (2015) 13 SCC 680 [to be noted, deletion procedure is captured in order reported in 2007 SCC OnLine SC 4], this Court deletes respondents 2 to 4 from the array parties in the captioned OP. Therefore, Corporation of Chennai, which has been described as the contesting first respondent supra, now becomes the lone respondent in captioned OP.

5. This Court, from hereon, in this order shall refer to the 'petitioner' as 'contractor' and 'lone respondent' shall be referred to as 'Chennai Corporation'.

6. Chennai Corporation awarded the work of construction of 4 Grade Separators to the contractor vide Letter dated 02.01.2007 bearing reference Lr.No.B3/722/2006. This was crystallized by way of recitals and covenants vide an Agreement bearing reference 'Agreement No.BR.DC.No.B3/722/2006' [hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity]. This Court is informed that value of said contract is Rs.4080.915 lakhs and the period for completion of work under said contract is 15 months. The work of construction of 4 Grade Separators as can be culled out from the case file reads as follows:

'This work of Construction of 4 Nos. of Grade Separators in Chennai under Package No.B3/722/2006 (Group 1) at:

1. North Usman Road – Kodambakkam High Road Junction

2. Usman Road – Duraisamy Road Junction 3. G.N.Road- Thirumalai Road Junction and

4. Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Salai- Turnbulls Road Junction'

7. The above shall be referred to as 'said work' for the sake of convenience.

8. Owing to the short statutory perimeter of Section 34 of A and C Act or in other words, the limited legal landscape within which a Section 34 Court should perambulate for testing an arbitral award, short facts shorn of elaboration will suffice. In this view of the matter, it will suffice to say that when said contract was put into operation for doing said work, disputes touching upon costs variation, 'Extension of Time' [EOT] and delay erupted. This is the crux and gravamen of the lis between the contractor and Chennai Corporation.

9. AT was constituted, AT entered upon reference and adjudicated upon the above lis. To be noted, before AT, contractor was the sole claimant and Chennai Corporation was the lone respondent. Contractor, as claimant before AT, made claims under seven heads and an abstract of these seven heads of claim, as captured in the impugned award can be usefully extracted and reproduced for better appreciation of this order. It reads as follows:

' Abstract of claims is as follows: