2013 (1) TMI 1066 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

The petitioner challenged an arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the grounds of public policy violation and exceeding the terms of the contract. The petitioner argued that the award included amounts for escalation, idle labor, and equipment retention, which were prohibited by specific clauses in the contract. The contract involved constructing residential quarters, and a significant delay occurred due to the employer's default. The arbitrator awarded various claims to the contractor, finding the employer responsible for the delay.The petitioner contested the amounts awarded under certain heads, citing clauses 4.4.3, 17.1, and 18 of the contract's general conditions. The arbitrator interpreted these clauses to apply only during the contract duration and not beyond it. The arbitrator awarded damages for loss of hire charges and escalation costs, considering the employer's default as extending the contract period. The petitioner did not raise clause 18 before the arbitrator, and the awarded claims stemmed from the delay caused by the employer.The arbitrator's finding of a 20-month delay caused by the employer was not challenged. The petitioner cited legal precedents to argue that the arbitrator should not act against the contract terms, but the court found no violation in the award. The court emphasized its limited role in reviewing arbitral awards and dismissed the petitioner's challenge without calling the respondent.In conclusion, the court upheld the arbitration award, finding no valid grounds for challenging it. The court's role in such cases is supervisory, and unless there is clear perversity, public policy violations, or a complete non-application of law, the court does not extensively review arbitral awards. The petition was dismissed with costs.