Justice Sri v. Bhaskar Rao, Retd. Judge. High Court of A.P. H.No

1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the I Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court' Secunderabad ('Trial CourtJ, dismissing the petition hled by the appellants under section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act' 1996 ('the 1996 Act') for setting aside the Award dated 24 04 2013' The present Appeal has been hled under section 37 of the said Act' 2 MB,J & GPX,J CMA.No.62O oJ 2019 2. The appellants before this Court were the r :spondents in the arbitration. The respondent No. 1/Contractor in t re Appeal was the Claimant in the arbitration. The learned Arbitrat') is arrayed as the respondent No.2 in the present Appeal.

3. The respondent No. l/Contractor had raise,i sx claims in the arbitration for the work done in accordance with t I L,\greement dated

09.03.1994, which was for conversion of Hubli - L rrda Section from Meter Gauge to Board Gauge between Dharwad ar.< I\Iugad Reach - II and execution o[ miscellaneous works between I) I rrwad and Mugad Stations. The six claims related, inter alia, to (i) lilTerence in rates payable for exccss quantities executed b1 the respondent No. l/Contractor bcyond 25o/o of the agreed qurr rt: ties along with additional items, (ii) payment for Earth work lelucted towards subsidence allowance, (iii) reimbursement of chargc s ,lnd commission paid to the hnancicrs on the amounts borrowed, (ir') rr:imbursement of expenditure incurred in continuing overheads ancl v) establishments from O1.O5.1995 to 31.03.1997 on account of delr in hnalisation of bills, (vi) reimbursement of loss of business ar C proht thereon, interest @ 18o/o trom 01.04.1997 to 01.09.2001 c n the total claim amount along u,ith vearly rests. \^- -/ MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.62O of 2079

4. The learned Arbitrator, a retired Judge of this Court' held that the claims of the respondent No' 1/Contractor were maintainable and deserved to be allowed' The Arbitrator allowed Claim Nos' 1' 2' 4 and 6 in part awarding a total amount of Rs'86'22'337 l- and interest @ 187o per annum for the pre-reference period' pendente lite' and from the date of Award to the date of payment'

5.TheTrialCourtdismissedtheappellant'spetitionbythe impugned order dated 22 '1O '2018 , inter alia' the ground that the Award had been passed after due consideration of the issues raised try the parties and there was no scope for interference in the reasons given by the Arbitrator. The appellant has flled the present Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 22'lO'2OLa' Learned . Standing Counsel for the Central Government 6. appearing for the appellants submits that the Trial Court should have set aside the Arbitral Award dated 24'04'2013 since the claims raised by the respondent No. 1 were not arbitrable as per Clause 63 of The GeneralConditionsofContract,lg8g(.GCCJwhichcoversthe matters deemed as 'Excepted matters'' Counsel submits that under Clause 63, al1 disputes and differences arising out of the Contract' .\ -.",. 4 MB,J & GPK,J 2It(A.No.62O of 2019 regardless of the time at which the dispute was rais:d and even after termination of the Contract shall be referred by tht' Jontractor to the Railu.ays and the latter shali make and notify its lecision within a reasonable period of time. The decision given by thrr Rrrilways shall be hnal and binding on the Contractor. Counsel subnr -s that Clause 63 menlions specific Clauses of the GCC covering the ( isputes raised by [he Contractor- Consequentially, the learned ArL tralor could not have decided on the claims raised by the respond: rt No l since the claims fall within 'Excepted matters' and were t': clurled from the purwiew of arbitration-

7. Standing Counsel further submits that the cla rrLs raised by the respondent No.l arc disputed and are beyond t 1(r terms of the Agreement entered into between the parties. CorLl .sr:l also submits that the respondent No.l/Contractor is not entit 3c to interest of belated payments in view of a prohibition Clause n the Agreement uD., Clause 16(21 of the GCC which states that .r ) interest will be payable upon the earnest money or the security dt cc,sit or amounts payable to the Contractor under the Contract brrt Government securities deposited in terms of Clause I 6(1) witl I c repayable with interesl accrued thereon. ?t/" 5 ItrB,J & GPK"J CMA.NI.62O oJ 2019 lrarned counsel appearing for the respondent No'1/Contractor 8. (the claimant in the arbitration) submits that the challenge to the Arbitral Award and the impugned order dated 22'|O'2OB is primarily on three grounds, namely, (i) the No Claim Certificate' (ii) the disputes failing within the category of 'Excepted matters" and (iii) bar on the grant of interest. Counsel submits that the findings of the Arbitrator as well as the Trial Court on all the three issues are well-reasoned and within the parameters of the Agreement entered into by the parties' Counsel urges that the scope of interference with an Arbitral Award and the order passed by a section 34 Court is extremely narrow unless the Appeal Court finds the reasons to be perverse' Counsel submits that the appellants have challenged the Award only on facts which is not permissible under the 1996 Act' g. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have considered the relevant material placed before us' 10 ThebrieffactsleadingtofilingofthepresentAppealareaS follows: (i) The appeilants and the respondent No' 1 entered into an Agreement on O9'03' 1994 for gauge conversion 6 MB,J&GPK,J C'MA.No.62O o! 2O79 of Hubli - Londa section which was a part o' lt: South Central Rails,ay Zone earlier from meter gau 1 to broad gauge. (ii) The Agreement was govemed by thr S andard General Conditions of Contract, 1989 of t te South Central Railway. (iii) Clause 6a(1) of the GCC provides for 0 rbitration for settli [rg the disputes. (i") Disputes arose between the parties ,1 r ring the execution of the work. The respondent No. 1 / ( orrtractor contendcd that the appellants did not adht 'c to the terms of Agreement and hence appro: r( hr:d the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh tr,z hling Arb.Appl. No.62 of 1998 for appointment ( I a Sole Arbitrat or. (v) On 15.12.2OOO, the erstwhile High .-lourt of Andhra Pradesh appointed the respondent It < .2 a s the Sole Arlrrtrator. The respondent No.l madr: : ix claims for varicrus sums amounting to Rs.2,71 ,91,44: I -. 7 MB,J & GPK,J CttA.No.62O ol 2079 (vi) The learned Arbitrator made the Award on 24.04.2013 by allowing Claim Nos.l, 2, 4, and 6 in part and awarding an amount of Rs.86,22,337 l' and' interest @ 18"/o per annum for the spells of period' The Claim Nos.3 and 5 were rejected as the same were not to pressed by the respondcnt No . 1 / Contractor. (vii) Aggrieved by the Award, the appellants sought for setting aside of the same and frled A.O.P.No.2 of 2Ol4 before the learned Trial Court for that purpose. (viii) The impugned order was passed on 22.10 '2078 whereby the appellants' Application for setting aside of the Arbitral Award was dismissed. (ix) The present Appeal was hled on O8.04-20i9 (*) On 28.08 .2O I 9, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim stay of the impugned order dated

22.lO.2}la subject to the appellants depositing a sum of Rs.43 lakhs and interest accrued on Rs'83 lakhs @ 18%o interest per annum from the date of the Award till 8 MB,J & GPK,J C'MA.No.62O oJ 2019 the date of payment within two months fron ,hat date. The respondent No.l was perrnitted to wir I dr-aw the amount deposited by the appellants withoul -rrnishing any security. (xi) On 09.12.2019, the Co-ordinate Bencl- r:corded that the appellants had complied with the r r le r dated 2a.Oa.2ol9 within the extended period of tirr I granted by the Court. I1. The contentions raised by the appellants in 1te prescnt Appeal are premised on three grounds. We propose to deal wth each of these three grounds under separate heads. I. No Claim Certificate 1,2. The appellants state that the respondent Nt. -rad furnished a 'No Claim Certificate' and hence the claims ar'( not arbitrable as furnishing of such Certihcate would amoun , 10 accord and satisfaction of payment of the full amount. The r trned Trial Court was however of the view that the appellants cannol al<e shelter under the 'No Claim Certihcate' since (Exhibit C- 12) thc respondent No. I -, -.ii1g,;. 'r.,j 9 NIB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.62O of 2019 received the flnal bill under protest and as such the matter was referred to the arbitration' The Tnal Court also held that the Arbitrator considered the contentions raised by both the parties including the allegation of the claims falling under Clause 63 of the GCC.

13. The Arbltrator considered the issue of 'No Claim Certificate' and found that the Certificate was actually a qualified Certificate which did not prcclude the respondent No'l/Contractor from raising the said claim. The Arbitrator also found that the respondent No.1/Contractor had consistently demanded consideration of claims until the payment of the final bill and in view of non-consideration' the respondent No.1/Contractor was constrained to submit a qualified No Claim Certihcate. The Arbitrator accordingly compared the No Claim Certifrcate/ Exhibit R-8 and Exhibit C-12 and found that some portions in the No Claim Certificate had been struck off with 'xxxxx'in respect of 'except the subsisting claims'and also that the corrected portion of the Certificate did not bear the initials of the parties'

14. The records were called for and we have checked the reievant exhibits. There is indeed a striking and unexplained discrepancy 10 MB,J&GPK,J CMA.No.62O o! 2079 between Exhibit C-12 and Exhibit R-8. The last lir e cf the Certificate i.e ., 'except the subsisting claims' has been struck ( ,i ' i e Flxhibit R-8-

15. We accordingly hold that the Arbitrator s,,r r lully justilied ln Itnding that Exhibit R-8/No Claim Certificate !v1s not a valid document as opposed to Exhibit C-12 which was I valid document The Arbitrator accordingly held that the Certit- ratc hled bv the respondent No.l is qualified as being conditional nl the claim was lhus arbitrable i6. ln National Insurancc Compang Limited V.; Boghara Polgfab Priuate Limitedt, the Supreme Court found on simi z r hcts that on the date of signing of the discharge voucher by tlr, -espondent, the payment was made after receiving the voucher. He I rc, lhe contents of the voucher that the said amount was received t 1 t ht: appellant for the full and final settlement lor the satisfaction of rt e claims was false and not supported by lawful consideration. Tlt supreme Court accordingly held that there was no accord and sal.i:; ac tion in the facts of that case ancl the dispute was hence arbitrable. I (2009) 1 Supremc Court Cases 267 i1 MB,J&GPK,J CMA.No.62O oJ 2019 17 . We do not hnd any reason to disagree with the view taken by the Arbitrator who had carefully perused the relevant exhibits to come to a view that the No Claim Certificate was a conditional document and would hence not amount to accord and satisfaction on the part of the respondent No. 1/ Contractor. Indeed, there cannot be accord and satisfaction if the No claim certificate is fumished by the contractor as a condition precedent for preparing the finat bill and for payment of the same. II. Excepted Matters

18. The appellants contend that the claims raised by the respondent No. 1 / Contractor fall within 'Excepted matters' as provided under clause 63 0f the GCC and hence the claims are not arbitrable. clause 63 of the GCC provides, inter alia, that all disputes and differences arising out of or'in connection with the Contract at any point of time including after termination of the contract and before or after determination of contract shall be referred by the Contractor to the Railway and the latter shall make and notify its decisions within a reasonable period of time after receipt of the representation' Clause 63furtherprovidesthatClausesls,22(51,39'as(a)'55'55-A(5)' I n t2 MB,J&GPK,J CMA.No.62O oI 2019 6I(2) and 62(l )(xiii)(B)(e)(b) of the GCC or any Ctr rse of the Special Conditions of thc Contract shall be deemed as Ex,) 1t-cd matters,and decisions thercon given by the Railway shall be fi: rl and binding on the Contractor and shall be excluded from the puli(:w of arbitration clause and they shall not be referred to arbitr,r ion. Hence, the appellants contend that the respondent No.1/Cor trlctor could not hz.rve referred t he dispute to arbitration and appoi I zLn arbitrator lor resol'"'ing the d i spute. lq- However, a reading of these Clauses wor II show that the disputes referred to arbitration do not fall within ar\ o[ these Clauses. For instance, Clause 22(5) deais with the mear irg and intent of specifications and drawings. The respondent No.1i ( to -rtractor dicl not relcr any dispute with regard to the specihcation ; lr n<l drau,ings to arbitration nor does the Claim No. I or any other. O [arm perLain to specifications or drawings. Similarly, Clause 39 of lf ,- !lCC deals with the rates for extra items of work which means I a . the claim for payment o[ additional work will have to bc d<:cided by the Committee/Engineer appointed by the Railways a i irn appeal from thc decision of the Engineer shall lie before the Chje 'lingineer whose 13 decision would then become final and binding on the RailwaYs' MB,J & GPK,J cMA.No'62O ol 2079 the Contractor and

20. Clause 39 of the GCC' which governed the Contract between the parties, provides for the rates for extra items of works' Clause 39 states' inter olia,that any item of work carried out by the Contractor on the instructions of the Engineer which is not included in the accepted Schedule of rates shall be executed at the rates set forth in the Schedule of Rates of Northern Railway' Where there is a dispute with regard to rates payable by the Engineer to the Contractor' the rates payable shall be decided at the meeting to be held between thc Engineer and the Contractor, in as short a period as possible after the need for the special item has come to the notice of the parties' In case the Contractor fails to attend the meeting after being notifred to do so or in the event of no settlement not being arrived at between the parties' the Railway shall be entitled to execute the extra works by other means and the Contractor shall have no claim for loss or damage that may result from such procedure

21. clause 3e of the Gcc hence clearlv ":::":.rr.#;t,: :: settlement of the rates payable by the Engr Contractor including such rates being decided at the meeting to be held l4 MB,J & GPK,J CMA.No.62O of 2019 between the parties within as short period as possibJr {dmittedly, there was no such mecting held between the parties witl'r r :gard to fixation of rates for the aclditional works done by the responck r t No. I / Contractor. l,earned Standing Counsel appearing for the Ra il vzLy has also not pointed to any meeting conducted in terms of Cla -t ;c 39 of the GCC. Hence, there \r,as no decision by the Engineer on th( -:r Les for additionat work rendererl by the respondent No. 1/ Contractor \', Lic h can be said to have attained fi nality.

22. Clause 39(2) of the GCC further provides thar I rr: Contractor shall only be cntitlcd to be paid in respect of the addition,r vr ork according to the rates hxed by the Engineer. If the Contractor is I r t r;atished with the decision o[ thc Engineer, he may appeal to the Chir:I ln gineer within 30 days of receipt of the decision of the Engineer. It w(,1 ld thus be evident that Clause 3!)(2) also reiterates the requirement ol a I nrrl decision of the Enginecr r,',,ith regard to hxation of rates. In the prest r t ,rase, the records do not show elny such decision rendered by the Errrl. rcer. Raising any claim in the abscnce of the Railway following the pro: 'd ,rre stipulated in Clause 39 of the GCC, the Railway/appellants cannr t algue that Clause 39 was beyor-rd the purview of arbitration or \r.o r- trl lall under the Excepted Matlcrs under Clause 63. i5 MB,J & GPKJ cMA-No.62O oJ 2079

23.TheTrialCourtfoundthatitwasmandatoryonthepartofthe appellants to arrive at a decision with regard to rejection of the rates quoted by the respondent No'l/ Contractor' The Arbitrator also found that the respondent No.1/Contractor had executed additional quantities of work in excess of 25ok than the agreed quantity on the instructions of the appellants. The respondent No'l/Contractor had also submitted protest letters stating that the rates for the additional quantlties were not considered by the appellants and were not referred to the lnter-Departmental Committee for {inalization of the rates as per the prevalent practices Moreover, the protests raised by the respondent No. I during the course of the execution of the additional quantities were recorded in the Site Order Book maintained by the appellants however, the appellants failed to produce the said Book before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator. accordingly found that the respondent No.1/Contractor was entitled to payment of extra rates as claimedandthedifferenceintheratespayablefortheexcess quantities executed by the respondent No'l beyond 257o over and '67 '377 l - ' The above the agreed quantities estimated at Rs Sa not produced anY Arbitrator also found that the appellant had document including record books to negate the claim of the L6 MB,J & GPK,J 2It(A. No.620 of 2079 respondenl No.1 lor additional work done beyonJ tht: 257o of the agreed quan t it l'.

24. We hnd substance in the argument made rn behalf of the respondent No. I / Contractor that in order to drau' in y of the claims under 'Excepled Matters' in terms of C1ause 63 rt the GCC, the procedurc plcscril:ed under the Excepted C I Lust s must be scrupulously lirllowed by the Railways. In th : c bsence of the procedure bcing compiied with, the Railways canlt,) tlke recourse of the argument of the claims being within the i r tbit of Excepted Matters.

25. It shoulcl also be mentioned that a blanket re i urce on 'Excepted Matters'presupposes a dominanl party unilaterally rli: arling the terms of the Contract to the other. This strikes at the roo. of thc bargaining power of the u'cakcr party touching upon the public lolicv of India and the most basic notions of morality or justice envisac:d under sections 34(2)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the 1996 Act.

26. Courts have repeatedly held that the Arbitrat::-is the master of the facts and an1, finding of the Arbitrator based on 1 re records placed before him/her should be given due weightage by 11'r l igh Court. The l7 MB,.T&GPK,J CMA.No.62O of 2O19 Supreme Court in Mandhani Construction Corporation Priuate Limited Vs. union of lndia2 found that in concluding that the items given were Excepted Matters and non-arbitrable, the High Court had completely ignored the actual lrndings of the Arbitrator' In Mandhoni ConstnLction, it was further held that the Procedure Prescribed for bringing the claims under Excepted Matters must scrupulously be followed and the clear hnding of the Arbitrator that the procedure had nol been followed should have been accepted by the High Court The Suprcme Court accordingly held that the hnding of the High Court o[ the items being non-arbitrable was unsustainable' III Grant of Interest

27. The appellants say that the respondent No'l/Contractor is not entitled to claim interest in view of Clause 1612l of the GCC' Ciause 16(2) is set out below: ' 16(2) No interest will be payable upon the earnest money or the security deposit or t-"""t""- plV"UIe to the Contractor under the contract, rr..t cou".n;ei;S;,-i;,1." deposited in terms of sub-clause iii;i;il;;""t *iu i" l"p"v"tle with interest accrued tl:ereon " '?(2010) l suPreme court cases 549 18 MB,J & GPK,J <:I A.No.62O of 2019

24. The Arbitrator held that the claim of interes in, lSok per annum on the basis of well -established commercial pract ( cs. and the raising trend in the price index was worthy of considerert i ,n. The Arbitrator accordingly held that the respondent's claim oi 187o interest per annum is just and reasonable and there is r r th ing unusual in claiming interest for the pre reference period, pt'r 7e'nt lite and from the date of the As,ard to the date of the payment. 'he Arbitrator also held that the rcspondent No.l had executed hc works to the satisfaction of the zrppcllants and the appellants lr Ld not pointed out any lapses on the part of the respondent No.1 at rn.7 penod of time. Moreover, it was not the case of the appellants Llr Lt the payment on the bi1ls had been delayed due to the lapses ,> r the part of the respondent No. I and that the appellants harl sought to avoid legitimate payments due to the respondent N() I . The Arbitrator accordingly partly allowed Claim Nos. 1, 2,4 and 6 rr.r'arding a total of Rs.86,22,337/ and interest @ 18% per annum frr the pre-reference period i.e., from the date of hnal bill to the date , 1- reference to the arbitration, pendent lite and from the date of the I vard to the date of payment. 19 MB,J & GPK'J CMA.No.62O of 2O79

29. The Arbitrator further found that there was inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in making payments to the respondent No- 1' i.e., the respondent No. I had completed the additional quantity of work on 30.04.1995 and the road was opened to traffrc but the final bill was paid on 31.03.1997, that too without any explanation by the appellants. The Arbitrator accordingly found that the delayed payments in expcn<liture on account of overheads and the respondent No. i /Contractor was entitled to recover the same from the appellants'

30. The prohibition on grant of interest under of Clause 16(2) of the GCC u'as rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in N. G. Gunani u- The Union of India, rep' bg its Chief Engineer, (Construction), South Central Railuay, Seannderobad3 The contention raised by the Southem Central Railway' Secunderabad (respondent before the A.P. High Court) was that the Arbitrator had allowed interest @ l8o/o per annum on the dues payable to the Contractor which was contrary to Clause 16(2) of the GCC and the Arbitrator had no powers to grant interest' The Court construed Clause 16(2) and held that there was no prohibition on the Arbitrator to grant interest upon determination of the amounts payable to the t 19*5 (4)aLr 1046 (0.8.) 20 MB,J & GPK,J C|WA.No.62O ol 2019 Contractor and that the Clause only indicated thz t the Department would not pay interest for the delayed payments r\ te re the amounts payable to the Contractor were released after lapse < f lime. The Court accordingly held that Clause 16(2) of the GCC co l a ns a rcstriction on the Departmental Ollicers to allow interest in vre 'v of iate payment which however does not restrict the power of t Le adjudicator to determine the interest on delayed payments. 31 . A similar construction was given by a Divis ort Bench of this Courl to Clause 16(2) of the GCC in a batch of casc's irL CMA.Nos. 1352 of 2017,260, 319 and 333 of 2Ol8 all of which 1rr rtained to C]ause 16(21 of the GCC

32. The issue of awarding pendent Lite rnterest to the claimant/ appellant by the Arbitrator was decided bv ht: Supreme Court in Ambica Construction u. Llnion of Indiaa. The Supr,: :re Court held that the Arbitrator q,as fully justified in €{ranting inter: ;t for pendent lite periocl notwithstanding Clause 16(2) of the GCC. Tht earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India u. Ambica Const ut:tions barring the Arbitrator from awarding interest pendent Jite was h,: :1 not to be a valid consideration. It may be noted that in the earlier de: si:n. the Supreme '(2017) 14 scc 323 '1zore1 qqcc :e lf!!fu 2L MB,J & GPIT'J CMA.No.62O oJ 2O79 Court had only considered the scope of grant of pendent lite interest in light of an exprcss prohibition in the contract'

33. Raueechee ond Compang u. Ihnion of Indio6 considered Clause 16(3) of the GCC with regard to non-pa5rment of interest and held that prohibition contained in the said clause cannot bind the Arbitrator with regard to award of intercst and that the Arbitrator has the power to award interest Pendente lite.

34. The power of the Arbitrator to award interest was agaln considered and afhrmed in tJnion of India u Susaka Priuote Limited dnd OthersT where the Supreme Court held that it is permissible to award interest in arbitrable claims by the Arbitral Tribunal and section 31(7)(a) and (b) of the 1996 Act empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to award interest on the awarded sum subject to the agreement between the parties. It was further held that the award of an Arbitral Tribunal is binding on the parties since the parties have chosen their own Arbitrator and given him/her the authority to decide the specific disputes raised in the arbitration " arn zo18 sc a1o9 !- ? (2018) 2 scc 182 22 ,TB,J & GPTLJ CMA.No.62O of 2019

35. We also find fiom an Extract/copy of the Rzri w,l1' Boarci's letter No.78lW1/CTl38, dated 21.1O.1979, that Clatrs,' 1o(2) of the GCC would not bar a claim for interest where a not r : is given by the Contractor claiming interest from the date on wlr ctr the amount is payable/refundable and is denied by the Railwa5, F< ministration. The Extract relies on section 3 of the Interest Act, 1():' ; q,hich empowers the Court i.e., Arbitrator to make an order on inter,' t.

36. The appellants do not deny that the Extract i; zrpplicable to the Agreement entered into between the parties in I 'l taken by learned counsel is that the Extract wil:; not placed in the .; 1. The only point proceedings before the Trial Court. Further, thc o, rligsnflum placed on behalf of the appellants dated 06.08.1997 prolr bitrng payment of interest under an Arbitral Award for payment ,) rnoney relate to Northern Railways. The Corrigendum was not in ti r<:e at the time of the subject Agreement which was cntered into on (r! 03. i994

37. It may be recailed that the Arbitrator was appointed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in an appl r ation made by the respondent in 1998 for appointment of a Sole Ar'bi1 r rtor. Clause 64 of thc GCC also provides for disputes and differr..c,rs betwr:en the / 23 MB,J & GPTLJ CMA-No.62O ol: 2019 parties, inter alia, with regard to construction / operation of the contract and liabilities arising [herefrom

38.ThelawwithregardtointerferencebytheAppealCourtunder Section 37 of the 1996 Act is well settled' ln Associate Builders u' Delhi Deuelopment Authoity s ' the Supreme Court dealt elaborately with the grounds available to the aggrieved party for setting aside an Award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act and reinforced that the scope of interference is limited to the grounds available under the said provision and not otherwise' It u'as further held that an Award can only be interfered with on the grounds of patent illegality, perversity or being contrary to the public policy of India'

39. A similar view was taken in UHL Potter Compang Limited u' State of H.F where it was also held that interpretation of the relevant clauses of the igreement is within the domain of the Arbitrator and interference is not permissible merely because another view rs possible. It was further held that the jurisdiction conferred on Courts '1zots1 lscc +s n (zozz) q scClto n 24 MB,J&GPK,J CMA.No.62O of 2019 under section 37 of the 1996 Act is narrower than ttrat of section 34 of the said Act: Somdott Builders-NCC-NEC(JV) u. II U lto

40. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel lt r rhe appellants do not decide on the controversy which has been arguec telore this Court. 41 . ONGC Ltd. u. Saut Hpes Ltd.11 dwelt, inter ahc,, orr the intention of the parties being reflected in the construction of thc : rntract for rccover), for breach of the contract. The Supreme Cou rt l-trr 1 that the Arbitral Tribunal is thus required to decide the issue in acco', :r rce with [erms of the agreement. The appellarts' contention with r :gard to Excepted Matters, No Claim Certihcate ald interest havc bccr c calt with in that judgment. in fact, the appellants failed to adhe , r to the procedure envisaged under the terms of the GCC and the Itrbitrator rightly construed the implementation of the Clauses stipu [i ted in the GCC in favour of the respondent No. l/Contractor. Adrni teCIy, there is no allegation that the respondent No.1 failed to compl]. 'r tlL the terms of the contract.

42. Union of India u. Monraj Enterprisesl2, which h: s ccen cited on the .\ ,r-,\gf grant of interest, does not apply to the facls )f'the present case 'o lzozsy e scc z5z 12oo:1 s scc zos " 1zozz1 z scc:sr k-:-rl_fu ,q MB,J&GPK,J CMA.No.62O ol2019 In that case, the Supreme Court construed the expression 'amounts payable to the Contractor under the Contract'as being independent of 'Earnest Money Deposit' and 'Sccurity Deposit' and is to be read disjunctively. This Court is hence of the considered view that the Arbitral Tribunal's authority to grant interest remains unaltered even under the 1996 Act. In fact, section 31(7)(a) and (b) of the 1996 Act crystallizes the authority oI the Arbitra] Tribunal to grant inlerest as it deems reasonable, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

43. We have aJready held that the trxLract./Railway Board's l€tter dated 21.1O. 1979 clearly states that Clause l6(2) of the GCC would not bar a claim for interest where the Contractor gives notice claiming interest from the date on which the amount is payable / refundable and the Railway Administration denies such claim. We have also held that the Corrigendum dated 06.08.1997 relied upon by Railways/appellants was made after the parties entered into the Agreement on 09.03. 1994. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. u. NCC Ltd.13 and Sri Chittaranjan MaitA u. Union of Indiala cited on the point of interest, will hence be covered by the view expressed by this Court. " 1202:1 z scc s:s 'o 1zorz1 s scc orr 26 MB,J & GPK,J CntA.No.62O of 2019

44. In the present case, the Arbitral Award datrr :14.04.20 13 is a detailed Awarcl containing decisions on each and r:' cr1' aspect of the dispute. The Arbitrator has not only considered thc ,u cmissions made on beha-lf of the parties but also the relevant record s vlrich were placed before him. Thc Arbitrator has duly considered the () rr sr:s of the GCC, 1989, to arrive at a reasoned Award. In the impl grre d order dated

22.1O.2O18, the Trial Court accordingly found no reirs,( n to interfere with the Arvard. Incleed, there was no ground for interfe', nr:e raised bv the appellants before the Trial Court amounting to pervE 'sr t1 or al-t Award which would shock the conscience of the Court.

45. As stated above, section 34 of the 1996 Act r:infrrrces that the merits of the dispute ca:nnot be revisited. The Appea ir,urt should also not substitute its view with that of the Arbitrator unle; , thc vierv taken is found to be pcrverse or in violation of the groun,l; available under section 34 of the 1996 Act. A mere plea that the A.l rr I is against the public policy of India or contrary to the established . rv, ()r contrary to any lerms of the agreement will not be sufficient ul r i] and unless the applicaltlappellant can substantiate the grounds lrr sctting aside/ challenge the ntaterial shown to the Court. 27 W,J&GPK'J CMA.No.62O oJ 2019

46. In the present case, the appellants have not sho\.t'n any document which would satisfy the requirement under section 34 of the 1996 Act' The challenge on the factual matrix of the dispute militates against the barontheCourtfromreviewingthefactsalreadyconsideredindetailby the Arbitrator

47. We have considered the three heads raised by the appellants individually, i.e., No Claim Certihcate' Excepted Matters and grant of Interest and do not find any ground under any of these three heads to interfere with the Arbitra-l Award or the impugned order of the Trial Court affirming the Arbitral Award' We accordingly find that the Appeal is without merit and should be dismissed'

48. C.M.A.No.620 of 2}lg, along with all connected applications' rs accordingly dismissed' Interim orders' if any' shall stand vacated There shall be no order as to costs' S ol-x]sntntvlsn nao JOINT REGTSTRAR a //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 2 1 The l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. one CC to Mrs. L.PRANATHI REDDY (Sr SC FOR CENTRAL GOWI Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRL PRASAD RAO VEMULAPALLI' Advocate IOPUCI J 4 Two CD CoPies %" B/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025 JUDGMENT GMA.No.620 of 2019 \ \, l ]l .J. ; I \. r,,r'i' UU l^. \-:: DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEO JS APPEAL $