The appellate jurisdiction under section 37 is limited to the grounds prescribed under section 34. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views for that of the arbitrator, provided the award is reasoned, logical, and not patently illegal or perverse.

Judgment :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

This is an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act).

2. The facts pertinent for disposal of the present appeal can be briefly summarised as under:

(i) The appellants and Chhabil Dass Agarwal (the respondent) had entered into a contract agreement dated 24.02.2004 for construction of 2x5MVA, 66/11KV substation with LILO from Phodong 66KV S/S and Meyong- C-Power House at Mangan. The work had to be completed within four months but due to several factors, it could be done only on 18.02.2008. The work value was initially for Rs.7,79,33,000. Admittedly, on 28.04.2004 and 09.11.2004 mobilization advances for Rs.1,00,00,000/- and Rs. 94,83,250/- respectively, were paid to the respondent. Although, the work was completed on 18.02.2008, the respondent did not receive full and final payment on the said date. According to the respondent, on 16.02.2006, he received Rs.2,76,44,048/- for civil works. Thereafter, for electrical works, he received Rs.1,76,00,000/- on 14.10.2011 and Rs.91,00,000/- on 02.11.2011. According to the respondent, on 31.03.2017 he received final payment of Rs.3,77,67,688/- after entering into a revised agreement dated 30.03.2017. The total amount received therefore was Rs.11,15,94,986/-.

(ii) Dissatisfied with the amount of payment received for the contract work, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause, claimed escalation cost and interest on delayed payment. Consequently, the sole Arbitrator was appointed by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2020 in Arb. P. No. 2 of 2020. After completing the proceedings, the impugned award was passed on 08.11.2021 holding that the respondent is entitled to both escalation cost and interest amounting to Rs.5,88,10,934/- along with 10% interest per annum. Aggrieved with the impugned award, the appellant filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which was rejected by the learned Commercial Court.

(iii) The respondent, in their claim before the learned Arbitrator, asserted certain facts which were admitted by the appellant in their statement of defence. The respondent asserted that during the process of execution of the work there was change in specification. The change in alignment of approach road necessitated increase in protective works and other allied works due to site conditions. There was also increase in number of culverts. To protect private properties during monsoon period and because of the instability of the site, additional walls were also constructed. The respondent had to execute all such works. For all such reasons, the revised estimate for said works increased from original approved cost of Rs.9,18,21,591.79p to Rs.11,19,55,284.10p which fact finds support from office notings of the appellants. Token work order dated 09.05.2007 was also issued to complete the work as per the revised estimate. Revised estimate was prepared in view of the excess work done at site. Ultimately, revised agreement dated 30.03.2017 was also executed for additional civil and electrical works. By the end of October 2005, more than 80% of the civil works were completed which fact has been admitted by the appellants in their office notings dated 26.10.2005. The entire work was completed and the sub-station charged on 18.02.2008. All the additional works were executed which fact the appellants also admitted. That, against the entire works