IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.09.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU O.S.A.No.143 of 2021 M/s.Anand Citi Centre Holdings Private Limited, No.10 & 11, Chennai City Centre, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. .. Appellant Vs.

M/s.Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, No.5, 2^nd Link Street, CIT Colony, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 27.08.2019 passed in O.P.No.1051 of

2017.

For the Appellant : Mr.Srinath Sridevan For the Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikei Balan JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

A spirited challenge is made to the order impugned by which a petition questioning the propriety of an arbitral award has been, by and large, repelled.

2. The principal plank of attack is the perceived failure on the part of the arbitrator to look into the documents filed by the appellant herein in support of the appellant's claim for damages on account of breach committed by the respondent contractor in completing the construction work and the inordinate delay on the part of the contractor. The appellant complains that the key documents are not referred to in the arbitral award dated September 27, 2017 and the arbitration court did not consider such aspect to be a serious ground of challenge.

3. According to the appellant, the building was to be constructed for the purpose of its use as a hotel and commercial complex. The appellant says that the contractor was aware of the nature of the project and of the contracts entered into by the appellant with third parties promising to make over possession of the constructed areas to such third parties within agreed timelines. The appellant complains that despite the contractor being aware of the damages that the appellant was exposed to qua third parties, the contractor did not take diligent steps to complete the project in accordance with the specifications or hand over the completed project within time. The appellant says that it is for such purpose that the contract provided for liquidated damages, but the arbitrator willy-nilly disregarded the same.

4. As to the various documents that were exhibited in course of the arbitral reference and not dealt with or referred to by the arbitrator in the impugned award, the appellant complains that the arbitration court has recorded that the arbitration court has looked into some of the documents and found that the award would not have been altered even if such documents had been looked into. According to the appellant, the test applied by the arbitration court in such regard is flawed and the arbitration court ought to have set aside the award on the ground that it failed to take relevant considerations into account and was, accordingly, manifestly arbitrary and patently erroneous.

5. It is elementary that the arbitrator is the final judge of the quality and quantity of the evidence. There is no rule that every document that is carried to an arbitral reference must be expressly referred to in the award. It is evident from the award that the arbitrator duly applied his mind to the matters in issue and referred to both the documents and the oral evidence before him in reaching the conclusions. Ordinarily, in exercise of the limited authority available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court cannot look into the basis of reasoning or even the law that may have been applied by the arbitrator in considering the matters in issue. It is only when the award appears to be completely flawed in the sense that it shocks the conscience of the court or when the methodology adopted for assessment is found to be opposed to public policy and egregiously unjust or unfair that an arbitration court would be excited to delve any deeper into the award or annu