Plausible arbitral findings on evidence and contractual interpretation cannot be re-appreciated in Section 34 proceedings.

The Petitioner (Union of India) awarded a contract to the Respondent for providing W.C. and bathrooms at R.K. Puram, Delhi, with a stipulated completion period of 12 months (ending 02.01.2003).

The project was delayed by over a year, with actual completion on 20.01.2004, due to hindrances attributed to the Petitioner.

Disputes arose regarding payments for extra items, deviated quantities, and damages for the prolongation of work.

The Petitioner relied on an undertaking (Annexure R-11) where the Respondent allegedly waived damages for delay; however, the Respondent withdrew this undertaking via letter dated 26.05.2005, citing coercion prior to receiving the final payment on 30.11.2005.

An Arbitrator allowed six of seven claims in favor of the Respondent.

The Petitioner challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), specifically contesting Claims 1, 2, and 3.

1. Whether the Arbitral Award granting market rates for extra, substituted, and deviated items (Claims 1 & 2) was patently illegal or contrary to the terms of the contract.

2. Whether the modification of the award dated 15.12.2008 to correct a numerical error in Claim 2 exceeded the jurisdiction and time limits prescribed under Section 33 of the A&C Act.

3. Whether the grant of escalation/damages (Claim 3) was sustainable in light of the Respondent’s signed undertaking not to claim damages for delay.

Section 34 of the A&C Act, emphasizing the restricted scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards, limited to "patent illegality" or conflict with the "public policy of India".

OPG Power Generation (P) Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. (2025), which established that an award is not set aside for mere erroneous application of law or re-appreciation of evidence.

The doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one).

Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) v. MI2C Securities and Facilities Pvt Ltd. (2025) regarding the correction of clerical errors under Section 33.

Regarding Claims 1 and 2, the Court found that the Arbitrator reasonably accepted the Respondent's market rate analysis because the Petitioner had failed to fix or communicate alternative rates for four years following project completion, despite its contractual obligation to do so.

The Court held this was a "plausible view" based on the Special Conditions of the Agreement.

Regarding the Section 33 correction, the Court ruled that the subsequent amendment of a numerical figure in Claim 2 was purely ministerial and rectified an obvious clerical omission, as the original text explicitly stated the intent to award the amount "as claimed".

Finally, regarding Claim 3, the Court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on the Respondent's waiver undertaking. Evidence showed the Respondent withdrew the undertaking due to duress well before the final payment was released.

The Petitioner’s own "Hindrance Register" corroborated that delays were attributable to the government, justifying the Arbitrator's award of damages based on CPWD cost indices.

It held that the Arbitrator’s findings were rooted in documentary evidence and contemporaneous correspondence, and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any patent illegality or perversity.

The Court affirmed that it cannot sit as a court of appeal to re-evaluate factual determinations or substitute its interpretation of contractual terms for that of the Arbitrator.

No order as to costs was made.