Section 34 interference remains limited as arbitral claims may be trimmed only for duplication, perversity, or lack of evidence.

A No Claim Certificate and undertaking did not bar the contractor's monetary claims where they were found to have been issued under coercion and duress, and the arbitrator's rejection of the full and final settlement defence was a plausible view. Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award was upheld to the extent it rested on a sustainable evidentiary basis, but interference was made where claims were duplicated, merged with other interest awards, or lacked any quantified foundation. Claims found perverse were set aside. The counterclaims were rejected for want of proof and were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's undertaking and No Claim Certificate barred the monetary claims on the ground of full and final settlement. (ii) Whether the arbitral award on the substantive claims, including interest and escalation, suffered from perversity or duplication warranting interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (iii) Whether the rejection of the petitioner's counterclaims called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's undertaking and No Claim Certificate barred the monetary claims on the ground of full and final settlement.

Analysis: The extension of time had been granted without levy of compensation, which supported the finding that delay was not attributable to the respondent. The undertaking and the No Claim Certificate were found to have been issued under coercion and duress, since the respondent's payments had remained withheld for a long period and the certificate was withdrawn shortly thereafter. The arbitrator's view that these documents did not operate as an absolute bar to genuine claims was a plausible one.

Conclusion: The preliminary objections based on the undertaking and the No Claim Certificate were rightly rejected and do not defeat the respondent's claims.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral award on the substantive claims, including interest and escalation, suffered from perversity or duplication warranting interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The Court applied the limited scope of interference under Section 34 and sustained the award wherever the arbitrator's reasoning was a possible and plausible view on the evidence, such as retention money, insurance-related deductions, DG set consumables, earth filling, anti-termite treatment, shuttering, escalation, and bank guarantee renewal charges. Interference was confined to those parts where the award was found to be unsustainable, including duplication in escalation, a claim for interest that merged with another allowed interest award, and certain claims where no fault or quantified basis was established. One claim for damages arising from roof collapse and one claim for infructuous expenditure were held perverse and set aside.

Conclusion: The award on the substantive claims was upheld in part and modified in part, with selective reduction and deletion of specific awarded amounts.

Issue (iii): Whether the rejection of the petitioner's counterclaims called for interference.

Analysis: The counterclaims were rejected primarily for want of proof, absence of quantified loss, and the effect of the extension of time without compensation. The petitioner also failed to establish evidence of defect rectification, damage to the DG set, defamation, or losses attributable to delayed completion or non-commissioning of the sub-station. The rejection of these counterclaims was therefore supported by the record.

Conclusion: The rejection of the counterclaims was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award was interfered with only to a limited extent, resulting in a reduced net amount payable to the respondent while leaving the rest of the award intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral award will not be disturbed if the arbitrator's view is plausible, but interference is justified where a claim is duplicated, perverse, or unsupported by any evidentiary basis.

---