Arbitral Tribunal cannot re-adjudicate substantive claims under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The dispute involves a contract for excavation and overburden removal at the Gauthamkhani Open Cast Project

Engineering Projects India Limited (EPI) entered into a pre-tender meeting with Associated Construction Company (ACC) on 03.10.2003, agreeing that ACC would execute the work on a "back-to-back" basis, with terms between SCCL (the principal employer) and EPI applying mutatis mutandis to ACC

After work commenced, the scope was reduced by 50% due to performance shortfalls

SCCL eventually terminated EPI’s contract, leading EPI to terminate ACC

Arbitration was invoked, resulting in an award dated 05.04.2017 and a modified award dated 19.08.2017

Both parties filed cross-objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Whether the Minutes of Meeting (MoM) and subsequent Work Order constituted a valid and binding contract between the parties.

Whether the Arbitrator travelled beyond the contract by imposing performance targets in the absence of a mutually agreed revised schedule.

Whether the Arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Act by awarding a previously declined claim in the modified award.

Whether an award can be made conditional upon the outcome of third-party recovery proceedings.

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial interference

The Court relied on OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions [para. 48] and Associate Builders v. DDA [para. 67] to define "patent illegality" and "perversity," noting that a "possible view" by an arbitrator on facts or contract interpretation must not be disturbed unless it is irrational or ignores vital evidence

Section 33 of the Act, which restricts modifications of an award to clerical, computational, or similar errors

Section 28(3) requiring the tribunal to take into account the terms of the contract

Regarding Issue 1, the Court upheld the Arbitrator’s finding that a binding contract existed, citing ACC's own pre-contractual conduct, mobilization of machinery, and acceptance of the 14.05.2004 Work Order

On Issue 2, the Court rejected ACC's claim that targets were "imaginary," holding that the original SCCL schedule stood incorporated mutatis mutandis and ACC’s failure to meet these was a factual finding based on evidence, including ACC's own admissions in meeting minutes

Regarding Issue 3, the Court found a "patent illegality" in the modified award; the Arbitrator had initially declined Counter-Claim No. 4 as sub judice, and reversing this via Section 33 amounted to an impermissible merits review rather than a clerical correction

On Issue 4, the Court found that making Claim Nos. 1 and 2 conditional on EPI’s payment to SCCL was consistent with the "back-to-back" nature of the contract and prevented unjust enrichment

The Court partly allowed EPI’s petition (OMP 408/2017), setting aside the portion of the Modified Award that granted Rs. 10,08,949/- plus interest under Counter-Claim No. 4, holding it outside the scope of Section 33 of the Act

The remainder of the award, including the conditional directions for penalty and differential costs, was upheld