IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. TANTIA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present Appeal filed under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sec. 37 ) [hereinafter referred to as 'A&C Act'], the Appellant assails the correctness of the judgment dtd. 24/7/2024 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Judgment'] passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM) 277/2021. The said petition had been instituted under Sec. 34 [hereinafter referred to as 'Sec. 34 Petition'] of the A&C Act(Sec. 34), assailing the arbitral award dtd. 23/1/2020 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Award'] rendered by the learned Sole Arbitrator [hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitrator']. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge declined interference and upheld the Award.

(2.) The present Appeal is confined to Claim No.6 of the Award as admitted by the learned Counsel representing the Appellant in the Order dtd. 17/9/2024 of this Court. The Appellant submits that the computation undertaken by the Arbitrator in respect of the said claim suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as an amount relatable to mobilization advance, which, according to the Appellant, stood recovered/adjusted, has not been duly accounted for, thereby resulting in an alleged excess award in favour of the Respondent. It is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in declining interference under Sec. 34 despite the aforesaid infirmity.

(3.) Since the present proceedings arise under Sec. 37 against an order refusing to set aside the Award, the scope of interference is necessarily limited. The question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in declining to interfere with the Award under Sec. 34, particularly when the Appellant alleges that the amount awarded under Claim No.6 fails to account for adjustment of mobilization advance, thereby resulting in an excess payment in favour of the Respondent.