UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUPERIOR AIRCON PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made in this petition as against the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 20.09.2016.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this Original Petition is as follows : The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 29(A) of the Amended Act has not been followed by the Arbitrator while passing the Award. Further, it is his contention that when the work stipulated in the contract is not completed within 24 months, the earnest money has to be forfeited. The petitioner has performed their part of the obligation. However, the respondent has not approved the drawings and site was not handed over till the date of termination of the contract. Therefore, when the contract stipulates forfeiture of the earnest money, the learned Arbitrator ought not to have passed the Award.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that Section 29(A) of the Amended Act cannot be pressed into service since the reference in this case is of the year 2012, much prior to the Amendment. Section 29A of the Amended Act has been amended only with effect from 23.10.2015 and Section 26 of the Amended Act apply to the arbitral proceedings commenced in accordance with the provision of section 21 of the Principal Act, before the commencement of this Act. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel that the Arbitrator analysed the entire evidence and factually found that the delay was on the part of the petitioner in handing over the site. Even after termination of the contract, sites were not ready without fixing air conditioners. Hence, submitted that the reasoned Award cannot be interfered.