A plausible arbitral interpretation of a contract is not open to interference under Section 34.

NHAI challenged, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award dated 30 November 2015 insofar as it allowed Claims 1, 2, 3 and 5 arising from a concession agreement for the Durgapur Expressway project

The claims concerned interest on delayed reimbursement for change-of-scope (“COS”) and additional works; a deduction for alleged pavement-design cost savings; routine and periodic maintenance costs for COS works; and post-award interest

The three-member Arbitral Tribunal awarded the concessionaire an aggregate of Rs. 27,24,88,198, with simple post-award interest at 10% per annum from 90 days after the award until payment

1. Whether the Tribunal could award interest on COS and additional-work costs from 30 days after completion of the works, rather than from 30 days after the Independent Engineer’s letter of 1 January 2007

2. Whether the Tribunal’s rejection of NHAI’s deduction for alleged pavement-design cost savings was contrary to the concession agreement and therefore liable to be set aside

3. Whether the Tribunal could award routine and periodic maintenance costs for COS works, including the costs relating to redesigned toll plazas

4. Whether the Tribunal’s award of post-award interest at 10% per annum warranted interference under Section 34

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits only limited judicial interference with an arbitral award; the court does not sit in appeal or substitute its interpretation of the contract merely because another view is possible.

An award may be interfered with where, among other grounds, the tribunal’s interpretation rewrites the parties’ bargain or is inconsistent with the contract or one that no reasonable person could adopt

Section 28(3) requires the tribunal to take the contract into account when deciding in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

Article 7.2 of the concession agreement governed reimbursement of COS costs, including reimbursement of additional costs and applicable interest; Article 7.2(e) addressed O&M costs, and Article 7.2(g) addressed reimbursement following certification of completed works.

Section 31(7)(b) gives the tribunal discretion to award post-award interest.

The Court referred to *National Highways Authority of India v. JSC Centrodorstroy*, (2016) 12 SCC 592, and *MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan*, (2011) 10 SCC 573, on restraint in reviewing contractual interpretations, and to *M/S PCL-SUNCON (JV) v. NHAI*, FAO(OS) No. 131/2014, decided 2 November 2015, on judicial restraint in Section 34 proceedings

On Claim 1, the Tribunal reasonably relied on evidence that the works were completed and COD achieved on 20 June 2005, and declined to make the concessionaire bear the consequences of delay in formal certification by the Independent Engineer

On Claim 2, the Tribunal read Schedule Q, Schedule G and the relevant GCC provisions together, and relied on the contemporaneous clarification permitting bidders to submit their own pavement designs, the DPR, and the Independent Engineer’s consistent view that no deduction was justified; the Court held that this interpretation was a permissible contractual construction

On Claim 3, the Tribunal used a cash-flow method derived from Schedule K, excluded toll-plaza maintenance costs that the agreement assigned to NHAI, and relied on Article 7.2(e) to find that COS-related O&M costs could include periodic maintenance

The Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning on each claim grounded in the agreement and record, and declined to reweigh the evidence.

The 10% post-award interest award was also within the Tribunal’s discretion under Section 31(7)(b)

It dismissed the petition and upheld the arbitral award, including simple post-award interest at 10% per annum from the 90th day after the award until payment