Undue and unexplained delay in an arbitral award can vitiate the award's validity under public policy.

ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging the Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, dated 30.07.2020.

2.When this petition came up for admission on 09.03.2022, this Court passed the following order:

Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 18.12.2020 assailing an 'arbitral award dated 30.07.2020 bearing reference O.P.No.215 of 2000' [hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by an 'Arbitral Tribunal' ['AT'] constituted by a sole Arbitrator.

2. Respondent before AT i.e., 'Tamil Nadu Housing Board' ['TNHB']

is the petitioner before this Section 34 Court and contractor who was claimant before AT is the lone respondent in the captioned matter.

3. Parties will be referred to as 'TNHB' and 'contractor' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. Captioned Arb OP is in the Admission Board and therefore it was heard out in accordance with 'The Madras High Court (Arbitration) Rules, 2020' [hereinafter 'MHC Arbitration Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity] more particularly Rule 8 thereat and Clause 8 of the practice directions thereat.

5. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Mr.S.Aravindan, learned counsel of M/s.Fox Mandal & Associates (Law Firm) for petitioner-TNHB, notwithstanding very many averments in the petition and several grounds in the petition submits that his campaign against the impugned award is threefold and the three points are as follows:

(a) Delay in making of the award;

(b) There is no arbitration agreement at all i.e., no arbitration clause in the primary contract; and (c) In the impugned award, interest has been awarded in favour of the contractor. Unexplained delay in making the award is almost 8 years (a little more than 6 years i.e., from 24.11.2013 to 03.02.2020 at the least);

6. Before proceeding further it is deemed appropriate to set out short facts shorn of elaboration i.e., minimum facts imperative to appreciate this order that is being made at this prima facie stage. Short facts are that the work is for construction of 560 HIG Flats in what is known as S.A.F. Games Village at Koyambedu; that the value of the contract is in the region of 61.98 Crores; that the period of contract is 12 months; that there was alleged delay leading to disputes/arbitral proceedings; that arbitral proceeding made by a three member AT earlier on 10.01.2000 got derailed owing to one of the learned arbitrators not to sign the award; that thereafter there was a judicial order of this Court (by consent of parties) vide O.P.No.215 of 2000 dated 26.02.2007 wherein the earlier derailed award qua three member AT was set aside; that the first sitting i.e., preliminary hearing was on 28.04.2008; that the impugned award was ultimately made 12 years later on 30.07.2020; that the claim of the contractor was under various heads such as Non payment of final bill, Encashment of Bank Guarantees, reimbursement of works contract tax, Non construction of the pump rooms and pump sets, cost of rectification work etc.; that TNHB made a counter claim under various heads such as additional sales tax, cost of non construction of pump rooms, pump sets, cost of rectification works, excess amount paid in respect of external electrical works, excess amount paid in respect of drain works, reimbursement of statutory levies etc.; that before AT there was no oral evidence but 25 exhibits on the s