JUDGMENT : 1. Heard both sides. 2. For a contract work of construction of OTM (Other than Married) Accommodation for Inf. Bn. Kulian (Miran Saheb), Jammu, the respondent M/s Bharat Construction, as being a successful bidder, stood allotted the contract. 3. The value for which said contract came to be so allotted to the respondent was Rs. 17,36,75,306.90 . An agreement in writing bearing CA No. CEPZ–29/2007–2008 in terms of a letter dated 31/07/2007 to said effect with the respondent came to be executed on behalf of the Union of India through Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone. 4. A contract related dispute between the two parties was amenable to an arbitration in terms of arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract IAFW-2249 being made part of said contract agreement so executed with the respondent. 5. The contract work though commenced from its scheduled date 16/08/2007 but could not be completed within or on its due date of completion on 15/08/2010 which, thus, came to be extended for completion to 21/09/2012 when the contract work came to be so completed by the respondent as certified by the Department with regard to the completion. 6. The conduct of the contract work from its date of commencement to its date of completion came to brew some disputes purportedly related to the execution of the contract falling within the scope of arbitration which led to a reference before an originally appointed arbitrator Brig. Gurdev Singh (Retd.) before whom arbitration proceedings had commenced in the year 2016 in the requisite manner but only to the extent of exchange of pleadings from both sides. 7. However, before the proceeding could advance further towards adjudication, the arbitrator Brig. Gurdial Singh came to relieve himself from the arbitration proceedings as a result whereof of Engineer-in-Chief, IHK of Ministry of Defence Army, New Delhi vide its letter No. 13600/WC/827/38/E8 dated 27/06/2017 by reference to clause 7 of IAFW – 2249 ( General Conditions of Contract) came to appoint Mr. R.P.Singhal CE(QS&C) Jt. DG(Contracts) as an arbitrator replacing Brig. Gurdial Singh so as to carry forward the arbitration to its logical adjudication . 8. R.P.Singhal CE(QS&C) Jt. DG(Contracts) as an arbitrator replacing Brig. Gurdial Singh so as to carry forward the arbitration to its logical adjudication . 8. As the dispute begging an arbitration had arisen on account of claims made by the respondent but denied and disputed by the employer side that is of the Chief Engineer Pathankot Zone, so it was the respondent which came forward with its statement of claims SOC before the arbitrator and responded by statement of defence SOD from the end of the appellants. In addition, there was also a statement of claim SOC from the appellants’ end and corresponding statement of defence SOD from the respondent's end to complete the pleadings before the arbitrator and duly supported and supplemented by submission of documents from both sides. 9. The arbitral tribunal was called upon to adjudicate the claims of the respondent against the appellants bearing aggregate claim of Rs. 8,35,64,706/ -, excluding interest related claim-heads, comprised as under: - Claim 1: An amount of Rs. 47,81,296 towards extra expenditure incurred towards extra work of rooms and toilet block got constructed in item No. 29 of Schedule “A” Part 1 construction of guard rest room with elevated Sentry post. Claim No.2: An amount of Rs. 3,56,856 towards extra expenditure incurred on account of construction of two separate blocks instead of one block catered under CA provision in respect of item No. 17 of Schedule “A” Part-1 i.e., block of garage for 10 cars and 30 motorcycles. Claim 3: An amount of Rs. 1,02,57,123 towards extra expenditure incurred on account of provision of plinth beams to building listed in Schedule 'A' \Part 1. Claim No. 4. An amount of Rs. 52,206.00 towards extra expenditure incurred towards provision of reinforcement and respect of Pedestal to FFI. Claim No. 5: An amount of Rs. 1,53,712.00 towards expenditure incurred on account of provision of RCC parapet in SM Barrack at GF& FF in veranda viz items 14 and 15 of schedule A. Claim No. 6: An amount of Rs. 3,50,538 towards extra expenditure incurred in execution of certain additional works ordered on the claimant. Claim No. 7: An amount of Rs. 7,15,700 towards extra expenditure on account of changes in design ward facia of certain buildings. Claim No. 8: An amount of Rs. 3,50,538 towards extra expenditure incurred in execution of certain additional works ordered on the claimant. Claim No. 7: An amount of Rs. 7,15,700 towards extra expenditure on account of changes in design ward facia of certain buildings. Claim No. 8: An amount of Rs. 18,10,100 towards compensation on account of abnormal variation in respect of quantities of certain items of part XIX and XX of schedule A. Claim No. 9: An amount of Rs. 1,12,709 towards compensation on account of damages arising due to application of incorrect rates of flooring under D.O.NO 86. Claim No. 10: An amount of Rs. 14,39,687 towards additional expenditure incurred on account of provision of grills/guard bars to windows. Claim No. 11: An amount of Rs. 22,68,874 towards compensation on account of damages arising due to specification of MINUS D.O. for Built – in – furniture not covered under the scope of CA. Claim No. 12: An amount of Rs. 2,95,683 towards compensation on account of damages arising due to non- contractual recovery from the final bill towards defects and claim No. 2 of UOI for recovery against defect rectification amounting to Rs.2,95,653.00. Claim No. 13: An amount of Rs. 1,95,800 towards extra expenditure incurred for rectification of defects pertaining to waterproofing treatment caused by inadequate specifications. Claim No. 14: An amount of Rs. 13,47,060 towards expenditure incurred on carrying out daily routine maintenance of assets taken over and occupied by users for which formal completion certificate was issued after a gap of 18 months. Claim No. 15: Towards escalation on the above claims 1 to 13 only. Claim No. 16 and Claim No. 19 partially: An amount of Rs. 72, 62,487 towards compensation on account of delayed and short payments of RARs and final bill. Claim No. 17: An amount of Rs. 4,71,23,622 towards damages due to prolongation of the contract period on account of breach by the respondent. Claim No. 18: An amount of Rs. 31,91,711 towards compensation on account of excessive recovery made by the respondent towards work contract tax. Claim No. 19: Interest towards past, pendente lite and future interest. Claim No. 20: An amount of Rs. 10,00,000 towards cost of arbitration and claim number one of UOI amounting to Rs. 3,00,000 10. Claim No. 18: An amount of Rs. 31,91,711 towards compensation on account of excessive recovery made by the respondent towards work contract tax. Claim No. 19: Interest towards past, pendente lite and future interest. Claim No. 20: An amount of Rs. 10,00,000 towards cost of arbitration and claim number one of UOI amounting to Rs. 3,00,000 10. The arbitral tribunal came forward with claim-wise adjudication in terms whereof the respondent’s claims No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, & 17 were disallowed by sparing respective decision against each of said rejected claims which are as under: - Claim No.1: An amount of Rs.47,81,296 towards extra expenditure incurred towards extra work of rooms and toilet block got constructed in item No. 29 of Schedule “A” Part 1 construction of guard rest room with elevated Sentry post. Decision: Keeping in view the provisions of contract documents, drawings and various submission made before sole arbitrator, decision conveyed by the accepting officer is considered just and fair in respect of claim No. 1 of claimant/contractor. The description of schedule ‘A’ item No. 29 specifies that the construction of block of guard rest room with elevated sentry post complete all as specified and shown on drawings. No additional building has been constructed. Accordingly, I do not uphold the claim and award amount to the claimant contractor. However, tender documents needs to be drafted in a transparent manner to avoid disputes and benefit of doubt is given to UOI as public money is involved. Claim No.2: An amount of Rs.3,56,856 towards extra expenditure incurred on account of construction of two separate blocks instead of one block catered under CA provision in respect of item No. 17 of Schedule “A” Part-1 i.e., block of garage for 10 cars and 30 motorcycles. Decision: (i) The plea of the respondent that it was a final and binding decision to this effect was conveyed by accepting officer. Accordingly, this claim is not arbitrable in terms of condition No.7 of IAFW – 2249 and this claim is beyond the jurisdiction of sole arbitrator. Final and binding decision is required to only when there are conflicting provisions in one and same document. The respondent failed to clarify as to what are the conflicting provisions within the same document. The contention of Union of India that a final and binding decision has been conveyed cannot be sustained. Final and binding decision is required to only when there are conflicting provisions in one and same document. The respondent failed to clarify as to what are the conflicting provisions within the same document. The contention of Union of India that a final and binding decision has been conveyed cannot be sustained. I, therefore, reject the plea of the respondent. (ii) It is a case of increase in ‘scope of work’. Department should have enclosed a combined drawing for block of garage for 10 cars and 30 motorcycles at the time of issue of tender documents. Moreover, it was decided by accepting office to accord deviation order for one common wall, two columns and plinth protection, however, Department did not produce any details regarding such pricing and payment to t he Claimant. Department did not implement even their own decision during currency of the contract UOI represented by CE Pathankot zone has not raised any objection regarding pricing of the claims furnished by the claimant along with SOC. Department is required to reimburse the claimant regarding increase in scope of work against serial item No. 17 of Schedule ‘A’ Part-1. The cost of 30 motorcycles garage is on lower side as compared to the cost of 10 cars garage. CWE Jammu on behalf of UOI has technically checked the pricing of the claim as intimated vide their letter number 85007/29/ARB/142/E8 dated 29 September 2018. Amount after technical checkup works out to be Rs.3,62, 108.90. (iii) Keeping in view the contract provisions, submissions made in writing and orally before me, I do not uphold the claim as proper details have not been produced before me as per the decision of the accepting officer, accordingly, I award nil amount to the claimant. Claim No.4: An amount of Rs.52,206.00 towards extra expenditure incurred towards provision of reinforcement and respect of pedestal to FFI. Decision: In view of note 14 on DRG number CEPZ –TD – 62/06 sheet/5, no plus DO is admissible to claim contractor. Accordingly, I do not uphold the claim and award NIL amount to claimant contractor. Claim No.5: An amount of Rs.1,53,712.00 towards expenditure incurred on account of provision of RCC parapet in SM Barrack at GF& FF in veranda viz items 14 and 15 of schedule A. Decision: In view of various contract, provisions, claimant has provided reinforcement on technical requirement basis, no DO is admissible. Claim No.5: An amount of Rs.1,53,712.00 towards expenditure incurred on account of provision of RCC parapet in SM Barrack at GF& FF in veranda viz items 14 and 15 of schedule A. Decision: In view of various contract, provisions, claimant has provided reinforcement on technical requirement basis, no DO is admissible. I do not uphold the claim and award nil amount to the claimant. Claim No.8: An amount of Rs.18,10,100 towards compensation on account of abnormal variation in respect of quantities of certain items of part XIX and XX of schedule A. Decision: It is observed that variation in quantity is with 25% of concerned schedule, therefore I do not uphold the claim and award NIL amount to the claimant contractor. Claim No.11: An amount of Rs.22,68,874 towards compensation on account of damages arising due to specification of MINUS D.O. for Built – in – furniture not covered under the scope of CA. Decision: The tender documents has not properly drafted, and there are sufficient reasons that Clement has raised the claim, but still, the built-in furniture is covered in the scope of contract as per note and.06.1 C in serial page 14 of contract agreement, therefore, I do not upload the claim and award NIL amount to the claimant contractor. Claim No.12: An amount of Rs. 2,95,683 towards compensation on account of damages arising due to non-contractual recovery from the final bill towards defects and claim NO2 of UI for recovery against defect rectification amounting to Rs.2,95,653.00. Decision: Claimant has not rectified the defects to the entire satisfaction of the Department, therefore, I do not upload the claim of Clement and award NIL amount to the claimant. However, the department should ensure better contract management by ensuring proper details of risk and cost contract and contractor should be informed in black and white to avoid disputes. The details produced were not self-explanatory. In conclusion based on practical consideration, the claim of UOI's Recovery against rectification is held. FDR bearing number 679418 dated 08/10/2014 deposited by the claimant to be encased or Rs.2,95,653 be adjusted against the amount awarded to the complainant and FDRB returned to the claimant. In case FDR is encashed, interest accrued on FDR shall be refunded to the claimant contractor as amount in shape of FDR is already in possession with UOI. FDR bearing number 679418 dated 08/10/2014 deposited by the claimant to be encased or Rs.2,95,653 be adjusted against the amount awarded to the complainant and FDRB returned to the claimant. In case FDR is encashed, interest accrued on FDR shall be refunded to the claimant contractor as amount in shape of FDR is already in possession with UOI. Claim No. 13: An amount of Rs.1,95,800 towards extra expenditure incurred for rectification of defects pertaining to waterproofing treatment caused by inadequate specifications. Decision: It is noticed that department has deviated from the specification as recommended by the manufacturer. There are variations in this specification scattered in the contract agreement and as recommended by the manufacturer, still the claimant cannot escape from their responsibility to provide quality work. Accordingly, I do not uphold the claim and award Nil Amount In favour of the claimant contractor. Claim No. 17: An amount of Rs.4,71,23,622 towards damages due to prolongation of the contract period on account of breach by the respondent. Decision: Regarding delay in completion of work, it was beyond the control of UI to a larger extent in the prevailing circumstances at the time of execution of work. I therefore do not afford this claim and award amount in favour of the claimant 11. The claims of the respondent which came to be allowed by the arbitral tribunal, aggregating to Rs. 1,79,57,954/- , are the claims No. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18 & 19 bearing respective decision which are as under: - “ Claim No.3: An amount of Rs. 1,02,57,123 towards extra expenditure incurred on account of provision of plinth beams to building listed in Schedule 'A'/Part 1. Decision: (i) The plea of the respondent that it was a final and binding decision to this effect, was conveyed by accepting officer. Accordingly, this claim is not arbitrary in terms of seven of IAFW-2249 and this claim is beyond the jurisdiction of sole arbitrator. Final and binding decision is required only when there are conflicting provisions in one and same documents. The respondent failed to clarify as to what are the conflicting provision within the same document. The contention of union of India that final binding decision has been conveyed is not sustained by me. Final and binding decision is required only when there are conflicting provisions in one and same documents. The respondent failed to clarify as to what are the conflicting provision within the same document. The contention of union of India that final binding decision has been conveyed is not sustained by me. (ii) It was necessary to find out as to which drawing is forming part of original document a copy of which was in custody of PCDA. The respondent was therefore asked to obtain this copy from CDA and produce the same during next hearing. They However, fail to produce this drawing, despite insistence of the claimant, where upon the claimant contended that original drawing was also without this revision, and hence the respondent is not intentionally producing the original drawing. This view of the complainant appears to be correct, the fact remains that the PCDA Chandigarh Mandir on behalf of respondent did not produce the original drawing, and the only thing on record is the revised drawing forming part of CTC set of the drawings. (iii) It is observed that clarification to drawings has been endorsed by the department at serial page 213 of CA, it is specific that ", wherever RCC print beams are shown on the drawings, brick foundation or not to be provided. In case brick wall/brick foundation is shown below plinth beam, it shall be treated as wide be shall be provided as per drawing number CEPZ/DD –05/2011 sheet 3/5.’ (iv) Therefore, clarification given in the CA will prevail and supersede the other provisions given in drawing. This provision specifically indicates and highlights that plinth Bheem should be provided as per drawing number CEPZ/DD – 05/2001 sheet number 3/5. It is admitted by union of India drawing number CAPZ/TD/05/ 2001 sheet number 3/5 without any revision was forming part of CA duly signed by union of India and climate contractor. Therefore, contention of union of India that said drawings have been made part of CA inadvertently cannot be accepted when it is a written and signed contract agreement. The contention of union of India represented by C Pathankote zone that claimant contractor has signed the revised drawing in appropriately is not based on facts. CE Pathan court zone is the draft of the tender documents, hence climber contractor is not held responsible on this account. The contention of union of India represented by C Pathankote zone that claimant contractor has signed the revised drawing in appropriately is not based on facts. CE Pathan court zone is the draft of the tender documents, hence climber contractor is not held responsible on this account. (v) Keeping the above in view, plain beams are not forming part of CA. The claimants will carry out the estimates based on such drawings at the time of coating of tender and plinth beams are clearly not shown. So arbitrator is bound by the documents forming part of agreement, and basically, it is a case of deviation from the contract provision. Even during the currency of the contract, department was considering to sort the disputes by way of plus deviation order as it appears from the claimant letter number BC: CEPZ – 29: Bracket PT – 111 bracket/202 Date 04/03/2009.union of India has not refused the contention of claimant during arbitration hearing. It was also decided to omit one brick, thick dwarf wall on external walls by both parties. (vi) Claimant contractor has demanded Rs1,02,57,123.00. It can be concluded that in case contract does not get for plain beams, a brick wall post as part of contract. After adjustment of cost of brick wall and omission of dwarf wall on external walls, financial effect of deviation, order works out to be Rs.89, 41, 007.00 as intimated by claimant wide their letter number BC/CEPZ – 29/ARB/80 dated 12/07/2018. CWE Jammu on behalf of UI has technically checked the pricing of the claim as intimated while their letter number 85007/29/ARB/142/E dated 29th/09/2018. Amount after technical check up works out to be Rs.8 nine, 41, 007.00. I therefore upload the claim partially and I award Rs.8 nine, 41, 007.00 bracket Rs.89,41,007 only bracket In favour of the claimant contractor. Claim No.6: An amount of Rs. 3,50,538 towards extra expenditure incurred in execution of certain additional works, ordered on the claimant. Decision: (i) UOI brought out that changes brought out at 6.1 a, B, DNE have been implemented at site without the approval of department. The contention of department is not acceptable as appropriate action was not taken to issue directions not to execute these works. Clement has not executed these works gratuitously. Therefore, amount against these deviations are due to the claimant. The contention of department is not acceptable as appropriate action was not taken to issue directions not to execute these works. Clement has not executed these works gratuitously. Therefore, amount against these deviations are due to the claimant. Similarly, department has not disputed occurrence of damage and consequently financial loss to the claim. Therefore, amount of Rs.4 zero, 332.00. On account of damage to security wall is due to contractor. Additional Hooks provided was checked by both parties and amount claimed is due to claimant as decided by both parties in arbitration hearing. (ii) Keeping in view the various written and oral submissions made before me, I upload the claim and award Rs.3,50,538 (rupees three lakh fifty thousand five hundred thirty eight only) only in favour of claim and contractor. Claim No. 7: An amount of Rs. 7,15,700 towards extra expenditure on account of changes in design facia of certain buildings. Decision: (i) It is observed that changes have been made in the design of downward fascia and same has not been regularised through AIP. Part payment was made through RARS up to 74th RAR to the claimant. Keeping in view the various written and oral submissions made before me, claimant has not executed these works gratuitously. (ii) I uphold the claim and award Rs.7,25,700 in favour of claimant contractor. Claim No.9: An amount of Rs. 1,12,709 towards compensation on account of damages arising due to application of incorrect rates of flooring under D.O.NO 86. Decision: (i) The plea of UOI that AIP was placed on Clement and the objection was not raised by the claimant. The claimant pleaded that UI has default by placing deviation order after actual completion of work which is covered in the scope of deviation order and are applicable, in case deviation order is placed during the currency of contract. Contention of claimant is sustained by me accordingly. (ii) It is observed that deviation order for extra work executed due to difference in thickness of Kota stone of 18MM and 7MM thick ceramic tile has not been considered by department during currency of contract and same is admissible to the claimant. (iii) Keeping in view the written and oral submission made before me, I uphold the claim and award Rs.1,12,709 to the claimant contractor. Claim No.10: An amount of Rs. 14,39,687 towards additional expenditure incurred on account of provision of grills/guard bars to windows. (iii) Keeping in view the written and oral submission made before me, I uphold the claim and award Rs.1,12,709 to the claimant contractor. Claim No.10: An amount of Rs. 14,39,687 towards additional expenditure incurred on account of provision of grills/guard bars to windows. Decision: (i) The UOI represented CE Pathankot zone has not denied that deviation has not been made at site, but without any proper AIP/go ahead from the department. Department has not issued directions to the claimant to stop the work when such deviation while being made at site. The claimant contractor has not executed the deviation work gratuitously. Basically, it is a case of deviation order and it is not understood as to why these deviation orders were not revised during the currency of Contract. (iii) Keeping in view the written and oral submissions made before me, I afford the claim and award Rs.1 four, 39, 687.00 in favour of claimant contractor for provision of Grill/guard to the windows. Claim No.14: An amount of Rs. 13,47,060 towards expenditure incurred on carrying out daily routine maintenance of assets taken over and occupied by users for which formal completion certificate was issued after a gap of 18 months. Decision: (a) The claimant submitted department has taken over the buildings of:- (i) SM Barracks (ii) Cookhouse (iii) Dining hall. (iv) Garage ramp. (v) Washing platform. (vi) Admn. Building On 28th May 2 010 and were handed over to the user for their use. CE Pathankot zone Pathankot has not denied effect of taking over buildings. Though there was no separate facing given for these buildings yet these buildings were taken over in interest of work/state. Department insisted upon claimant to carry out the rectification of defects caused by normal, wear up to 12 months beyond the date of completion. (b) In view of condition 49 of IAF W – 2249, department can take over such buildings completed to satisfaction of GE. However, defect liability period will commence from the date of taking over these buildings. (c) Claimant has produced the record of carrying out the routine maintenance, duly signed, concerned, JE, users rep and rep of Contractor. Even the claimant has carried out the replacement of bulbs and fluorescent tubes as per record produced during arbitration hearing. Claimant has carried out the defect rectification up to 20th September 2 013 as per record produced during arbitration hearing. Even the claimant has carried out the replacement of bulbs and fluorescent tubes as per record produced during arbitration hearing. Claimant has carried out the defect rectification up to 20th September 2 013 as per record produced during arbitration hearing. Department did not object to the pricing carried out by the claimant during arbitration hearing. Similarly, department also did not object to time period. Claimed by claimant during arbitration hearing. (d) The claimant has restricted the claim for 15 months instead for a period of ranging from 15 to 24 months. UI, instead of asking maintenance from Clement should have claimed maintenance funds and maintenance of building should have been carried out by department beyond 27th May 2 011 from Government funds. Department played the department can take over the building and defect liability period will commence from the date of completion. The contention of department is not based on condition 46 of IAFW – 2249 and 49 of IAF W – 2249, therefore same is not sustained by me. (e) In view of above, I uphold the claim fully and award Rs.13,47,060 In favour of claimant. Claim No.15: Towards escalation on the above claims 1 to 13 only. Decision: (i) CE Pathankot zone representing UOI did not offer comments on the escalation amount on the plea that none of the claim is admissible, therefore escalation amount is also not admissible. (ii) UOI was again directed to offer their comments as per minute issued on 12th April 2 018 and again reminded white soul arbitrator letter nO.300217/RPS/82/PERS dated 19/09/201A.UI replied the ibid letter but did not offer their comments on escalation details (Claim N0.14 of claimant). The claimant has claimed the escalation on higher side. Therefore, amount is calculated on average basis as per final bill. I afford the claim partially and award Rs. 18, 49,542 in favour of claimant against claim number three, six, seven, nine and 10 only Claim No. 16 and Claim No. 19 partially: An amount of Rs. 72,62,487 towards compensation on account of delayed and short payments of RARs and final bill. Decision: (i) CWE Jammu brought out that sincere efforts have been made by department to make the payment in time to claimant, and there is no abnormal delay in payment of RARs. The payment of final bill has been delayed, accordingly 6%. 72,62,487 towards compensation on account of delayed and short payments of RARs and final bill. Decision: (i) CWE Jammu brought out that sincere efforts have been made by department to make the payment in time to claimant, and there is no abnormal delay in payment of RARs. The payment of final bill has been delayed, accordingly 6%. Simple interest shall be paid to the claimant on the final bill amount of Rs.23,91,086 with effect from 22/10/2013 to 09/01/2015. An amount of Rs.7,55,662 was also paid through hand receipt on 25/03/2015. Accordingly, simple interest at the rate of 6% shall also be paid on Rs.7,55,662 to the claimant from 22/10/201 3 to 25/03/2015. Accordingly, I uphold the claim partially and amount of interest shall be paid by UOI to claimant as described in para 16.13(i), accordingly. Claim No. 18: An amount of Rs. 31,91,711 towards compensation on account of excessive recovery made by the respondent towards work contract tax. Decision: (i) WCT has been recovered at the rate of 11.5%, whereas same is required to be recovered by UI at the rate of 10.31%. (ii) The contention of UOI that JNK High Court judgement in respect of case number OWP419/2014CMANO539/2014, OWP525/ 2014, CMA number 685/2014 has been pronounced after completion of work is not applicable to the work cannot be accepted since the judgement has attained finality after dismissal of SLP in the Supreme Court. Similarly, circular 01/2006 dated 14/03/2016 issued by the JNK department of commercial tax has been issued after completion of work based on dismissal of SLP of GNK government. Supreme Court. (iii) Keeping in view the contract provision, submissions made in writing an orally before me, I afford the claim in totality and Rs.31, 91, 711 in favour of claimant. Claim No. 19: Interest towards past, pendente lite and future interest. Decision: The work was completed on 21/09/2012. Therefore, I award a simple interest of 6% on the awarded amount except amount pertaining to claim 16 21/09/2012. Date of completion to 09/01/2019, date of publishing of award. In case award is not paid within 19 days from the date of publishing of award or by court whichever as earlier it will carry 9.5% simple interest from the date of publishing of award to the date of payment or declared by court, whichever is earlier. Date of completion to 09/01/2019, date of publishing of award. In case award is not paid within 19 days from the date of publishing of award or by court whichever as earlier it will carry 9.5% simple interest from the date of publishing of award to the date of payment or declared by court, whichever is earlier. Claim No. 20: An amount of Rs.10,00,000 towards cost of arbitration and claim number one of UI amounting to Rs.3,00,000. Decision: Each party will bear its own expenditure incurred during arbitration, and I do not upload the claim of claimant and UI. Accordingly, I want NIL amount to the claimant and as well as to UOI.” 12. Thus, vide an award dated 10/01/2019 read with an amendment dated 05/03/2019, the arbitration case came to be disposed of which left the Chief Engineer (AF) WAC, Military Engineering Service (MES) aggrieved as a result whereof a petition under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 (as it was then in force in the then State of Jammu & Kashmir) preferred by the Chief Engineer, Pathankot joined by the Garrison Engineer, Project Jammu before the court of Principal District Judge, Jammu filed on 28/09/2019 which came to be assigned to 2 nd Additional District Judge, Jammu for adjudication. 13. In their said petition under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997, the above named two officials as the petitioners came to assail the decision of the arbitral tribunal with respect to the claims allowed in favour of the respondent. 14. In their said petition under section 34, the two petitioners joined issue purely from factual aspect and angle. In this regard, said two petitioners’ side challenge to issue wise decision in favour of the respondent with respect to the claims as set out in section 34 petition is referred to herein next:- i) With respect to the decision of the arbitral tribunal with respect to claim No. 3, it came to be challenged on the premise that the plinth beems were covered under the scope of the contract agreement and in that regard the structure drawings were meant to be actually referred to but the arbitral tribunal overlooked the same and thus fell in error of judgment. ii) With respect to the decision on claim No. 6, the challenge thrown was that the arbitral tribunal without verifying as to whether the proposed changes were given any approval in principle (AIP) or not and without going into the details as to whether the items forming the subject matter of claim No. 6 were included in lump- sum quoted by the respondent or not renders the award on claim No. 6 as non-speaking without any details rendering the award qua said claim No. 6 being in violation of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997. iii) The challenge to decision on claim No. 7 was also premised on the same line as challenge to the claim No.6. iv) Decision on claim No. 9 was questioned that since the respondent had failed to notify objection to D. O. No. 86 within fifteen days of conveying of approval in principle (AIP) and accepted the D.O. without any reservation, as such, it was an afterthought on the part of the respondent which was hit by limitation but was overlooked by the arbitral tribunal. v) Claim No. 10 as allowed in favour of the respondent was questioned on the count that provision for Grills/Guard bars to windows was part of the revised drawing and, as such, did not qualify to be a deviation but still the arbitral tribunal reckoned the same to be a deviation at the site allowed by the petitioners and, as such, disentitled the respondent to claim an additional expenditure for the said claim. The arbitral tribunal is said to have overlooked the contract agreement provision and acting beyond the ambit of the same. vi) Decision on claim No. 14 came to be objected on the ground that the arbitral tribunal did not consider the fact that the buildings were handed over to the Department with the consent of the respondent and that the arbitral tribunal did not give any basis to check the valuation of pricing of maintenance and to deduct the cost of maintenance which was already covered in the maintenance period as per contract. vii) Decision on claim No. 15 came to be challenged saying that escalation award is unjustified as the arbitral tribunal has not given any detailed calculation and how the money was worked out. vii) Decision on claim No. 15 came to be challenged saying that escalation award is unjustified as the arbitral tribunal has not given any detailed calculation and how the money was worked out. viii) Decision with respect to claim No. 16 was questioned on the premise that as per condition No. 6 of IAFW 2249 (General Conditions of Contracts) the time period for making payment of final bills is applicable to undisputed final bills and, as such, the time period specified in condition No. 6 of IAFW2249 was not applicable and no interest was admissible but the arbitral tribunal overlooked the contract provision and acted beyond the ambit. ix) Claim No. 18 related decision of the arbitral tribunal was questioned by quoting the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s judgment and further saying that the claim was an afterthought on the part of the respondent. It came to be submitted that any claim in this regard was to be a case of refund to be obtained from the Sales Tax Department and, as such, the petitioners were not liable for the same in particular for any interest on the amount as claimed under the said claim No. 18. x) Decision on claim No. 19 with respect to the payment on interest came to be questioned on the challenge that the same were un-contractual against the expressed contract condition, as such, the interest awarded against the claims were tenable and liable to be set aside. 15. In their petition under section 34, the summarized challenge to the award of the arbitral tribunal was on the basis that the same was unjustified in comparison with specific agreed contract provision, mis-conduct on the part of the arbitral tribunal on the ground of non-appreciation and non-consideration of the arguments, documents and reply/objections submitted by the petitioners before the arbitral tribunal and the award being in conflict with the policy of India, as the claims by the respondent were not supported with any documentary evidence. 16. Said petition under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 came to be negated by the court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu by virtue of a judgment dated 12.10.2020 on file No. 07/Arbitration. 17. 16. Said petition under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 came to be negated by the court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu by virtue of a judgment dated 12.10.2020 on file No. 07/Arbitration. 17. In negating the challenge posed to the arbitration award under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997, the court of 2 nd Additional District Judge, Jammu came to bear in perspective not only the scope of section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 but also the position of law as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ONGC Vs Western Geco International Ltd.” & “ONGC Ltd. Vs Saw Pipes Ltd.” in particular and came to hold that the arbitral tribunal has discussed each and every claim in proper perspective and even if there was any error of fact with respect to the claims allowed in favour of the respondent, the same were not good enough to provide a basis for challenge under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997. 18. It is against this judgment dated 12.10.2020 of the learned 2 nd Additional District Judge, Jammu that the present appeal has been addressed. 19. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI has made very vehement submissions in questioning the judgment dated 12.10.2020 of the learned 2 nd Additional District Judge, Jammu. 20. In an appeal under section 37 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 (now repealed), this Court on its appellate side jurisdiction is supposed to examine the order under appeal read with the award which was the subject matter of challenge under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997and not vice versa. 21. When this Court examines the section 34 petition filed on behalf of the appellants before the court of learned 2 nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, an observation is self-attracted that in the entire section 34 petition the findings of the arbitral tribunal vis-a- vis claims allowed in favour of the respondent were not questioned by any whisper of averment that the same were “perverse.” In fact, word “perverse” has not even been whispered lest stated in the petition. In absence of a challenge on that count how and what challenge came to be posed to the award was left to be drawn from the reading and understanding of the contract agreement and from that perspective to bear the adjudication of the section 34 petition. 22. The appellants’ petition under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 read between the lines means to make a sense to this Court that it was no part of the onus of the appellants to substantiate, through their pleadings in the petition under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997, as to how the claims allowed in favour of the respondent by the arbitral tribunal were misconceived and contrary to the agreement admitting of no dispute at first instance much less an arbitral one. A petition under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is supposed to be composition of pleadings and evidence so as to enable an effective adjudication. 23. In absence of clarity in their own challenge to the award in reference under section of 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997, the appellants cannot expect this Court to don the hat of an arbitrator and then carry out the adjudication of the matter in appeal which surely is not the scope envisaged under section 37 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997. 24. The appellants had a full opportunity to complain, explain and expound in their petition under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 the exact fault lines and points of adjudication so made by the arbitral tribunal vis-a-vis claim-wise adjudication of the respondent’s claims in particular those allowed in favour of the respondent and then engage the court below to come up with response to ground-wise challenge so posed in a petition under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997. However, that opportunity was missed by the appellants at that stage of challenge and, therefore, the same cannot be now retrieved by the appellants through the medium of the present appeal and engaged this Court in literally in the role of jurisdiction under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997. 25. However, that opportunity was missed by the appellants at that stage of challenge and, therefore, the same cannot be now retrieved by the appellants through the medium of the present appeal and engaged this Court in literally in the role of jurisdiction under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997. 25. In the case of “ M/s Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd. ” (2019)15 SCR 295 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came forward with discernment of scope of section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and in that regard in para 26 it has been observed that an arbitral award should not be interfered with in a casual and cavalier manner, unless the court comes to a conclusion that the perversity of the award goes to the root of the matter without there being a possibility of alternative interpretation which may sustain the arbitral award. It further came to be recommended that section 34 is different in its approach and cannot be equated with a normal appellate jurisdiction as the mandate of section 34 is to respect the finality of the arbitral award and the party autonomy to get their dispute adjudicated by an alternative forum as provided under the law and if the courts were to interfere with the arbitral award in the usual course on factual aspects, then the commercial wisdom behind opting for alternate dispute resolution would stand frustrated. 26. 26. Drawing from the aforesaid guiding understanding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, when this Court examines the present case, then the arbitrator, who came forward with adjudication of the dispute in reference, is entitled to due respect from this Court given the fact that the arbitrator was surely a domain expert and that too appointed by the discretion of the authority that being Engineer-in-Chief, IHK of Ministry of Defence Army, New Delhi to which the respondent submitted his consent and, therefore, the practical and professional wisdom of the arbitrator to examine the nature and nitty-gritties of dispute obtaining between the respondent and the appellants qua the contract in reference cannot be read with any element of doubt and that gets fully supported from the fact that for each and every claim the learned arbitrator came forward with discussion and decision and that is good enough exercise of jurisdiction on the part of an arbitrator even if there are said to be any error or omissions in the adjudication so made. 27. In the case of “ Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited Vs Delhi Metro Rai Corporation Limited , ” (2022)1 SCC 131 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has updated the understanding obtaining on the scope of section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and to this extent paras 28, 29 & 30 are worth reproduction:- “28. This Court has in several other judgments interpreted Section 34 of the 1996 Act to stress on the restraint to be shown by Courts while examining the validity of the arbitral awards. The limited grounds available to Courts for annulment of arbitral awards are well known to legally trained minds. However, the difficulty arises in applying the well-established principles for interference to the facts of each case that come up before the Courts. There is a disturbing tendency of Courts setting aside arbitral awards, after dissecting and reassessing factual aspects of the cases to come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention and thereafter, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award. This approach would lead to corrosion of the object of the 1996 Act and the endeavours made to preserve this object, which is minimal judicial interference with arbitral awards. This approach would lead to corrosion of the object of the 1996 Act and the endeavours made to preserve this object, which is minimal judicial interference with arbitral awards. That apart, several judicial pronouncements of this Court would become a dead letter if arbitral awards are set aside by categorising them as perverse or patently illegal without appreciating the contours of the said expressions. 29. Patent illegality should be illegality which goes to the root of the matter. In other words, every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression “patent illegality”. Likewise, erroneous application of law cannot be categorised as patent illegality. In addition, contravention of law not linked to public policy or public interest is beyond the scope of the expression “patent illegality”. What is prohibited is for Courts to re-appreciate evidence to conclude that the award suffers from patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, as Courts do not sit in appeal against the arbitral award. The permissible grounds for interference with a domestic award under Section 34(2-A) on the ground of patent illegality is when the arbitrator takes a view which is not even a possible one, or interprets a clause in the contract in such a manner which no fair-minded or reasonable person would, or if the arbitrator commits an error of jurisdiction by wandering outside the contract and dealing with matters not allotted to them. An arbitral award stating no reasons for its findings would make itself susceptible to challenge on this account. The conclusions of the arbitrator which are based on no evidence or have been arrived at by ignoring vital evidence are perverse and can be set aside on the ground of patent illegality. Also, consideration of documents which are not supplied to the other party is a facet of perversity falling within the expression “patent illegality”. 30. Section 34(2)(b) refers to the other grounds on which a court can set aside an arbitral award. If a dispute which is not capable of settlement by arbitration is the subject-matter of the award or if the award is in conflict with public policy of India, the award is liable to be set aside. Explanation (1), amended by the 2015 Amendment Act, clarified the expression “public policy of India” and its connotations for the purposes of reviewing arbitral awards. Explanation (1), amended by the 2015 Amendment Act, clarified the expression “public policy of India” and its connotations for the purposes of reviewing arbitral awards. It has been made clear that an award would be in conflict with public policy of India only when it is induced or affected by fraud or corruption or is in violation of Section 75 or Section 81 of the 1996 Act, if it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law or if it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.” 28. When this court bears in mind the mandate so stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as referred in aforesaid paras, this Court finds no scope to hold the arbitration award suffering from any legal weakness warranting interference under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and that is the reason the court below found no merit in the challenge posed by the appellants in their petition under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to the award. 29. In the case of “ Psa Sical Terminals Private Limited Vs Board of Trustees of V. O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin & others ” (2023)15 SCC 781 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has again reiterated and refreshed the understanding with respect to the scope of judicial intervention in examination of an arbitration award in terms of section 34 read with section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. By reckoning that neither under section 34 nor under section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 the court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence attending adjudication of an arbitration case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paras 40, 41 & 42 came up with the understanding on the subject as is reproduced herein under:- “40. It will thus appear to be a more than settled legal position, that in an application under Section 34, the court is not expected to act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. The scope of interference would be limited to grounds provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The interference would be so warranted when the award is in violation of “public policy of India”, which has been held to mean “the fundamental policy of Indian law”. The scope of interference would be limited to grounds provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The interference would be so warranted when the award is in violation of “public policy of India”, which has been held to mean “the fundamental policy of Indian law”. A judicial intervention on account of interfering on the merits of the award would not be permissible. However, the principles of natural justice as contained in Section 18 and 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration Act would continue to be the grounds of challenge of an award. The ground for interference on the basis that the award is in conflict with justice or morality is now to be understood as a conflict with the “most basic notions of morality or justice”. It is only such arbitral awards that shock the conscience of the court, that can be set aside on the said ground. An award would be set aside on the ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the award and as such, which goes to the roots of the matter. However, an illegality with regard to a mere erroneous application of law would not be a ground for interference. Equally, re-appreciation of evidence would not be permissible on the ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. 41. A decision which is perverse, though would not be a ground for challenge under “public policy of India”, would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. However, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality. 42. To understand the test of perversity, it will also be appropriate to refer to paragraph 31 and 32 from the judgment of this Court in Associate Builders (supra), which read thus: “31. The third juristic principle is that a decision which is perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same is important and requires some degree of explanation. It is settled law that where: (i) a finding is based on no evidence, or (ii) an Arbitral Tribunal takes into account something irrelevant to the decision which it arrives at; or (iii) ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision, such decision would necessarily be perverse. 32. It is settled law that where: (i) a finding is based on no evidence, or (ii) an Arbitral Tribunal takes into account something irrelevant to the decision which it arrives at; or (iii) ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision, such decision would necessarily be perverse. 32. A good working test of perversity is contained in two judgments. In Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons [1992 Supp (2) SCC 312], it was held : “7. … It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law.” In Kuldeep Singh v. Commr . of Police [ (1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 429], it was held : “10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with.” 30. Bearing in consideration the factual aspects of the present case as well as the legal position obtaining adverted to hereinbefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the vehement contentions and pleas of Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI that it is a good case for an appellate side intervention to take place from the end of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court finds no legal scope, basis and possibility to disturb award and judgment and, therefore, dismisses this appeal, more particularly when considering the fact that out of the award amount of Rs. 3,02,54,877/- deposited with this Court on 15.09.2021, 30% of the said amount stands already released in terms of an order dated 08.04.2022 in favour of the respondent which came to be so withdrawn by the respondent. 31. The present appeal is, thus, dismissed.