Bangalore District Court
Union Of India vs Aakar Consultants & Infrastructure on 30 November, 2021
KABC010084272016
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2021
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
A.S.No.61 /2016
Applicant: Union of India,
Military Engineering Services,
No.2 DC Area, MES Road,
Yashwanthpur Post,
Bengaluru-560022.
Represented by its
Chief Engineer (AF) Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Ananda Murthy R., Advocate)
-V/S-
Respondents: 1. Aakar Consultants & Infrastructure
Developers Pvt. Ltd., E-24, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024.
2. Brig. Arun Mehta, Sole Arbitrator, Chief Engineer (Arbitrator), GE Chandimandir Complex, Chandimandir-134107.
(By Sri.A.S., Advocate)
2 A.S.No.61/2016
Date of institution of the suit: 06.04.2016
Nature of the suit: Suit for Arbitration and
Conciliation Act
Date of commencement of 08.02.2017
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 30.11.2021
pronounced:
Duration: Year Months Day
05 07 24
JU DG MEN T
This arbitration suit is filed by the applicant u/Sec.34 of Arbitration Conciliation Act 1996 praying to set aside the award dated 31.12.2015 passed by the sole arbitrator in arbitration case No.CE(AF) BAN/19 of 2011-12.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner which leads to file this arbitration suit in nutshell are as follows:-
The applicant is a division of the Union of India, part of their Military Engineering Service. The applicant called for tenders for the "Composite Consultancy Service for planning, Design and BOQ of a 3 A.S.No.61/2016 75 bedded Hospital and some allied buildings along with allied services at Air Force Station, Coimbatore."
The respondent No.1 was the successive bidder for the tender. A contract was executed by the applicant and respondent No.1, on 2nd May, 2011, bearing No.CE(AF) BAN/19 of 2011-12, for a contract value of Rs.27,00,000/- carried out the works specified in the contract. As per the terms and conditions of contract, the respondent No.1 was under an obligation to complete the work within a period three months. The respondent No.1 has failed to execute the work within the stipulated period and thereby committed breach of contract. The respondent No.1 has not clarified the observations and errors raised by the applicant at the time of execution of the work. As such, the applicant had cancelled the contract vide CE(AF) Bengaluru letter No.800734/AF/232/E8, dated 12.08.2013 with effect from 12.05.2013. As such, respondent No. 4 A.S.No.61/2016 invoked arbitration clause existed under the consultancy agreement. The respondent No.2 was appointed a sole arbitrator to hear and adjudicate the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.1. The applicant had appeared before the sole arbitrator and filed the objection statement and also filed its counter claim. The respondent No.1 filed re-joinder to the counter claim. The learned arbitrator, after hearing the parties was pleased to pass the award on 31.12.2015, awarding sum of Rs.28,46,718/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. in favour of respondent No.1. The applicant being aggrieved by the said award of learned arbitrator has filed present arbitration suit before this court u/Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. The main grounds urged by the applicant in this arbitration suit challenging the award 5 A.S.No.61/2016 passed by the learned arbitrator in nutshell are as follows:
i) The learned arbitrator failed to appreciate the fact that time was the essence of the contract and any breach on the part of respondent No.1 with regard to delivery of the project within stipulated time frame would amount to materials breach of the contract.
ii) The respondent No.1 has never completed the work within the period of 90 days as stipulated under contract. As such, the respondent No.1 is also liable to pay the compensation for delay in completion of the work.
iii) The learned arbitrator did not considered this aspect and hence, the impugned award is against the public policy of India.
iv) The learned arbitrator has failed to appreciate the provisions of Sec.73(L) of the Indian Contract Act 1872. The Quantum of the compensation 6 A.S.No.61/2016 and the percentage award so arrived by the learned arbitrator is not with any accordance with law, scientific formula or works under any clause of the contract.
v) As per BOO proceedings, consultant has completed 95% of architecutal drawings comprising of 12% of total accepted (A amount) and 15% pf E/M services (comprising 8% of total accepted (A amount).
After considering compensation for delay payment work, respondent No.1 is entitle for only 0.702 lakhs. But learned arbitrator awards Rs.19.71 lakhs with respect to claim No.1 for payment of completed work against reasonable amount of Rs.0.702 lakh for claim No.1.
vi) As regard claim No.2 for repeated revision of drawings the revision in drawings has been necessitated due to poor quality of work done by the consultant. The learned arbitrator has over looked the 7 A.S.No.61/2016 aspect of poor quality of work done by the consultant and has wrongly awarded Rs.4,32,000/- for claim No.2.
vii) The learned arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.1,09,350/- with respect to claim No.4 pertaining to loss of profits. It is against to Sec.73 of Indian Contract Act which stipulates that compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damages sustained by reason of breach.
Viii) The impugned award is illegal, opposed to the principles of natural justice and against to the terms and conditions of the contract and the same is liable to be set aside.
On these among other grounds, the applicant has prayed to allow the suit.
4. After filing of arbitration suit, it is numbered as AS.No.61/2016 and the notice was issued to the respondents No.1 and 2. After service of notice, the 8 A.S.No.61/2016 respondent No.1 has appeared through his counsel on 27.02.2018. Case against respondent No.2 came to be dismissed for not taking steps by the applicant. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments.
5. Heard the arguments of Learned counsel respondent No.1. The Learned counsels for the respondent No.1 has filed his written arguments. No oral arguments was addressed on behalf of applicant inspite of sufficient time was given. Further no written arguments was also filed on behalf of the applicant inspite granting sufficient time to file the written arguments. Hence, oral and written arguments of applicant was taken as nil.
6. Perused the petition averments, written arguments of respondent No.1 and other materials on record.
7. Having done so, the following points will arise for my consideration:
9 A.S.No.61/2016
POINTS
1. Whether the applicant proves that the learned arbitrator is erred in partly allowing the claim of respondent No.1?
2. Whether the applicant proves that the learned arbitrator is erred in rejecting his claim made in the counter claim?
3. Whether the applicant proves that the interference of this court is required with impugned order of the learned arbitrator?
4. Whether the arbitration suit filed by the applicant is deserves to be allowed?
5. What Order or decree?
8. My findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
1. Points No.1 to 4 .. In the Negative
2. Point No.5 .. As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. POINTS NO.1 TO 4: These four points are interrelated to each other and as such, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts. 10 A.S.No.61/2016
10. This arbitration suit is filed by the applicant praying to set aside the arbitration award dated 31.12.2015 passed by sole arbitrator in arbitration case No.CE(AF) BAN/19 of 2011-12. Before discussing about merits of case, I am of the view that those is necessity of noting some admitted facts herein. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant is a division of Union of India, part of their Military Engineering Services. It is not in dispute that applicant had invited tenders for the "Composite Consultancy Service for Planning, Design and BOQ of 75 bedded hospital and some allied buildings along with allied services at Air Force Station, Coimbatore". It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 had applied for tender and he was emerged as a successive bidder and the contract was allotted to the respondent No.1 by the applicant. It is not in dispute that a consultancy agreement came to be executed in between the 11 A.S.No.61/2016 applicant and respondent No.1 on 02.05.2011 bearing contract No.CE(AF) BAN/19 of 2011-12 for a contract value of Rs.27,00,000/-. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 has not completed the work as per consultancy agreement within stipulated period. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant had cancelled the consultancy agreement on 12.08.2013 with effect from 12.08.2013 vide CE(AF) Bengaluru letter No.800734/AF/232/E8, dated 12.08.2013. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 invoked arbitration clause existing under the consultancy agreement. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.2 was appointed as sole arbitrator to hear and adjudicate the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.1. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 made several claims before the learned arbitrator. It is also an admitted fact that the learned arbitrator has passed an award by partly allowing the 12 A.S.No.61/2016 claims of the respondent No.1 and rejected the claim of the applicant.
11. According to the applicant, the impugned award passed by the learned arbitrator illegal and against to principles of natural justice and against to the terms and condition of contract. The main grounds urged by the applicant in this arbitration suit to challenge the arbitration award is that the award passed by learned arbitrator is against to the public policy and it is against to the principles of natural justice and it is against to the terms and conditions of contract. Apart from aforesaid three grounds, the applicant has also contended that the learned arbitrator has not considered the fact that the time is the essence of contract and the learned arbitrator has not considered the fact that the respondent No.1 has not completed the contract within stipulated time. The applicant has also contended that the award of the 13 A.S.No.61/2016 learned arbitrator is against to the provisions of Sec.73 of Indian Contract Act.
12. On the other hand, the Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has argued that u/Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, this court cannot re-appreciate at the evidence and review the award on merits. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that under amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2015, there is a explicitly bar for re-appreciation of evidence, and review of merits of arbitration award. It is further argued by the Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the applicant can challenged the arbitration award only on the grounds permitted u/Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The grounds urged by the applicant will not come within the limited grounds provided u/Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Hence, the Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has argued that the 14 A.S.No.61/2016 arbitration suit filed by the applicant is deserves to be dismissed. In support of his argue, the Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
(i) Associate Builders V/s Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49.
(ii) National Highways Authority of India V/s R.N.Shetty and Company - 2014 SCC Online Delhi 3392
(iii) Astonfield Renewable Pvt. Ltd. and another V/s Ravinder Raina, 2018 SCC Delhi 6665.
13. Since the applicant has challenged the award of learned arbitrator u/Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, it is for the applicant to prove that the grounds urged by him will come within the purview of Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 provides various grounds under which an arbitration award may be set aside by the court. As such, it is 15 A.S.No.61/2016 relevant to note herein the provision of Sec.34(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
Sec.34(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation act provides as follows;
An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if,
(a) The party making the application furnishes proof that-
i) A party was under some incapacity; or
ii) The arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or
iii) The party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an Arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
iv) The arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those 16 A.S.No.61/2016 not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
v) The composition of the arbitral Tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this part; or".
(b) the Court finds that--
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
Explanation 1.- For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if.-
(i) The making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or 17 A.S.No.61/2016
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2. - For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.] [(2-A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award:
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence.]
14. Thus from the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that scope of intervention of this court with arbitration award is very limited. Interference of this court with the arbitral award is only limited to the grounds which are mentioned under the aforesaid provisions. U/Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this court has no power to set aside the arbitral award merely on 18 A.S.No.61/2016 the ground of an erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of evidence. This court acting u/Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot re-appreciate the evidence or review the dispute.
15. The applicant in this arbitration suit is mainly challenging the arbitral award on the ground that the arbitral award is against to public policy and it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian Law. The applicant is also challenging the arbitral award, on the ground that it is oppose to the principles of natural justice. As such, the burden is upon the applicant to prove that the impugned arbitral award is against the public policy of India and it is against to the principles of natural justice and is against to Indian law.
16. The other ground urged by the applicant in the petition would amount to re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned 19 A.S.No.61/2016 arbitrator in order to set aside the arbitration award. This court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in order to hold that there is delay in execution of the work by the respondent No.1 and on account of the said delay the applicant has sustained loss and as such, its counter claim is liable to be allowed. Further this court also cannot re-appreciate the evidence in order to ascertain whether there is any poor quality done by respondent No.1 and whether the man power of respondent No.1 was not trained and whether the learned arbitrator has failed to look into the allegations regarding poor quality of work done by respondent No.1 or not.
17. The grounds of delay in completion of work cannot be considered as one of the ground to hold that the impugned award is against to public policy of India and affect the policy of Union of India as contended by the applicant. In the decision relied upon by the Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 reported in 20 A.S.No.61/2016 SSANGYONG Engineering and Construction Company Limited V/s. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has explained the meaning of public policy of India. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the scope of various grounds mentioned u/Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment has clarified that under no circumstance can any Court interfere with an arbitral award on the ground that justice has not been done in the opinion of the Court. That would be an entry into the merits of the dispute which, as we have seen, is contrary to the ethos of Sec.34 of the 1996 Act. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment has discussed when the award can be set aside on the ground of "a party being otherwise unable to present its case". The standard textbooks on the subject have 21 A.S.No.61/2016 stated that where materials are taken behind the back of the parties by the Tribunal, on which the parties have had no opportunity to comment, the ground under Sec.34(2)(a) (iii) would be made out. But it is not the case of the applicant that the learned arbitrator has taken the materials behind its back and it has no opportunity to comment or make submission on those materials. The arbitration has given ample opportunity to both the parties to produce their case. Only on the basis of materials placed by both the parties, the learned arbitrator has passed the impugned award.
18. In the aforesaid decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also discussed the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice as contend u/Sec.18 and 34(2) (a) (3) of the Act. It is held that a mere contravention of the substantive law of India, by itself, is no longer a ground available to set aside an arbitral award. It is held that if the arbitrator gives no 22 A.S.No.61/2016 reasons for an award and contravenes Sec.31(3) of the 1996 Act, that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face of the award. But in the present case, the learned arbitrator has given valid reasons for allowing the claim of the respondent No.1, he by appreciating the material on record has partly allowed the claim of the respondent No.1. As such, it cannot be come to the conclusion that there is patent illegality on the face of the award so as to set aside the same.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the aforesaid case has observed that u/Sec.18 of the 1996 act, each party is to be given a full opportunity to present the case. U/Sec.24(3), all statements, documents or other information supplied to, or applications made to the arbitral tribunal by one party shall be communicated to the other party, and any expert report or evidentiary document on which the arbitral tribunal may rely in making its decision shall 23 A.S.No.61/2016 be communicated to the parties. But the learned arbitrator has permitted both the parties to submit their written statements along with supporting documents in regard to the matter in dispute. Further the respondent No.1 has submitted its statement of case before the learned arbitrator. Further the applicant has also submitted its statement of case before the learned arbitrator. Further from the award, it is clear that both the parties were given ample opportunity to heard. The applicant given the details of grounds of its case before the learned arbitrator and the circumstances leading for cancellation of the contract. The learned arbitrator has also permitted both the parties to submit the documents in support of their claim. The learned arbitrator has given full and fair opportunity to both the parties to defend their case. I do not find any violation of principles of natural justice by the learned arbitrator before passing the impugned 24 A.S.No.61/2016 award. Both the parties were given ample opportunity of being heard and to present their case before the learned arbitrator. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned award cannot be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as contended by the applicant.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Associate Builders V/s Delhi Development Authority case has held that it is only when arbitral award being in conflict with the public policy of India as per Sec.34(2)(b)(ii), that the merits of an arbitral award are to be looked into under specified circumstances. It is further held that when a court is applying the "public policy" test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal. The interference is permissible only when findings are arbitrary oppose to public policy, perverse or when conscience of court is shocked or 25 A.S.No.61/2016 when it is illegal. It is further held that the arbitrator being ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence while drawing arbitral award, award based on little evidence or on evidence which does not measure up in quality to a trained legal mind cannot not be held invalid. It is further held that once it is found that the arbitrators approach is neither arbitrary or capricious, no interference is called for on facts.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further held that interest of India must construed taking India as a member of world of the world community in its relations with foreign powers. It is further held that only when it shocks conscience of court it can be held that the award is against justice or morality. It is further held that interference on the ground of justice does not include what the court things is on the facts of a case for which it then seeks to substitute its view for the Arbitrator's view and does 26 A.S.No.61/2016 what it considers to be "justice". Court u/Sec.34 does not act as first appellate court and cannot interfere with errors of facts either in passing of perversity.
22. It is further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that construction of terms of a contract is primarily within the domain of arbitrator to decide. Interference by court is permitted only when arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair minded or reasonable person could do. It is further held that arbitrator is having freedom to apply any formula to decide damages claimed for delay in execution of contract. The court cannot interfere with choice of formula made by arbitrator or from the formula on the ground of doing rough and ready justice, in laws the same shocks the conscience of the court. It is further held that interference is not permissible mainly because another view is possible. In the present case, the learned arbitrator has come to clear opinion based 27 A.S.No.61/2016 upon the materials on record that applicant is not entitled for any damages for delay in execution of contract. The learned arbitrator has allowed the claim of the respondent No.1 only to the extent of the work done by him by applying his own formula. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this court cannot interfere with formula applied by the arbitrator for ascertaining the amount to be awarded. Only on the ground that if different formula is adopted or if different approach is taken than what is adopted by arbitrator, there is possibility of arriving at different conclusion, is not a ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned arbitrator in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
23. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the recent decision reported in 2021 SCC online SC 473 (Project Director, National Highway Authority of India V/s M.Hakeem and another) has 28 A.S.No.61/2016 explained the scope of Sec.34 of Arbitration Act and held that it provides only for setting aside awards on very limited grounds. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is settled law that when an arbitral award is challenged u/Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, no challenge can be made on merits of arbitral award. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the arbitral award on merits of the case. As such, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, this court cannot set aside the award of learned arbitrator on merits on the grounds urged by the petitioner.
24. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme court of India has relied upon another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court of India reported in 2019 (4) SCC 163 (MMTC Ltd. V/s Vedanta Ltd.) wherein the court held that "the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, 29 A.S.No.61/2016 and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the court under Sec.34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision." In view of this decision, it is clear that this court cannot independently assess the merits of the award.
25. Hon'ble Supreme court in the decision reported in MC Dermott international Inc V/s Burn
- Standard company Ltd., has held that the arbitration act 1996 had only created a supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The Hon'ble Apex court has clearly held that in the aforesaid judgments that the court cannot correct the errors made by the arbitrator and it can only set aside the award, keeping supervisory role of the court at minimum level. It is further held that the rationality is 30 A.S.No.61/2016 that parties voluntarily choose to opt, arbitration excluring the jurisdiction of courts because they want expediency and finality.
26. Thus from the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is clear that this court has no power to decide the merits of arbitration award and this court has no jurisdiction to independently asses the merits of award. This court can set aside the award only on the ground of fraud and violation of principles of natural justice and if the award is against against to public policy and other grounds has mentioned in Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is already discussed and held above that there are no sufficient materials to hold that there is a violation of principles of natural justice and the arbitrator has not provided ample opportunity to the applicant to be heard and to represent its case and to produce necessary documents in support of its case. The learned arbitrator has given 31 A.S.No.61/2016 all possible opportunities to the applicant to present its case and to present all necessary documents. Further the allegations made by the applicant against the respondent No.1 is regarding violation of the terms and conditions of contract. The learned arbitrator in his award has clearly discussed all the terms and conditions of the consultancy agreement and after going through the materials places by both the parties, the learned arbitrator has passed his award. As such, the same cannot be re-appreciated by this court. The violation of the terms and conditions of the contract as alleged by the applicant cannot be considered as violation of public policy of India. The impugned award cannot be said to be against the public policy of India and it will not affects the policy of union of India. The dispute between the applicant and respondent No.1 is purely of contractual nature. The damages for breach of contract and compensation for work done are only 32 A.S.No.61/2016 remedies available to both the parties. The learned arbitrator has considered both the aspects. As such, the impugned arbitration award will not affect the policy of India. Only on the ground that applicant is a division of Union of India, it cannot be come to the conclusion that breach of contract is against the public policy of India and only on the grounds that the award is passed against the division of Union of India, it cannot be come to the conclusion that it is against policy of Union of India. The impugned award will not to shock the conscience of the court so as to interfere with the impugned award. The impugned award cannot be considered as arbitrary, capricious or perverse. Under these facts and circumstances, I do not find any merits in the arbitration suit filed by applicant. I do not find any merits in the grounds urged in the petition. On any of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the petition, the impugned award passed by learned 33 A.S.No.61/2016 arbitrator cannot be set aside. The petitioner has failed to prove Points No.1 and 2. As such, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the award passed by learned arbitrator. As such, the arbitration suit filed by the applicant is deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer Points No.1 to 4 in Negative.
27. POINT NO.5: In view of my findings on Points No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORD ER The arbitration suit filed by petitioner u/Sec. 34 of Indian Arbitration Conciliation Act 1996 is hereby dismissed.
The arbitration award dated 31.12.2015 passed by the sole arbitrator in Arbitration case No.CE(AF) BAN/19 of 2011-12 is hereby confirmed.
No order as to cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of November, 2021).
(B.G.Pramoda) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
34 A.S.No.61/2016